Ms Oceans Eleven Metals PVT LTD vs. Office Of The Principal Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate Ludhiana

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Eleven Metals Pvt. Ltd., challenged a show cause notice dated 02.08.2024, issued by the respondents (The Principal Commissioner Central Goods and Services Tax, Ludhiana & Others) under Section 122(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner had not filed a reply to this show cause notice. The High Court noted this absence of a reply and the petitioner's intention to raise all questions before the authority.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had not filed a reply to the show cause notice. It was expected that the petitioner would do so, raising all the questions and contentions before the concerned authority. The Court further expected the authority to pass a speaking order. Since the petitioner had not availed the statutory remedy of responding to the show cause notice, the writ petition was dismissed at this stage. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition is not maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy, such as responding to a show cause notice, is available and has not been exhausted by the petitioner. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has an adequate remedy available by filing a reply to the show cause notice and raising all contentions before the concerned authority, as per Section 122(1) of the CGST Act, 2017? The petitioner's contention was not explicitly recorded in terms of arguments made before the High Court. However, by filing the writ petition, the petitioner implicitly sought to bypass the statutory remedy. The respondents' contention, as implied by the Court's decision, would be that the statutory remedy of responding to the show cause notice is available and should be availed by the petitioner.