Suyojit Infrastructure PVT. LTD. And Anr vs. Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise, Nashik

Held

The Court declined to entertain the writ petitions, holding that the Petitioners had not demonstrated that their case fell within the parameters for entertaining a writ petition in the absence of alternate remedies, as laid down in Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai. The Court found that the Petitioners had made bald and misleading statements regarding the absence of alternate remedies. Regarding the issue of jurisdiction based on the extended period of limitation, the Court noted that the show cause notices contained necessary allegations regarding suppression, and it was not appropriate for the High Court to decide on the correctness of these allegations at this stage. Such factual investigation would require the Petitioner to show cause. The Court, following its earlier judgment in Oberoi Constructions Ltd (supra) and Supreme Court decisions, relegated the Petitioners to reply to the show cause notices and take all permissible defenses. The Court directed the Petitioners to pay costs of Rs 25,000 each for attempting to take chances and making misleading averments. The adjudicating authorities were directed to consider the replies, hear the Petitioners, and pass a reasoned order if replies were filed within four weeks along with proof of cost payment. All contentions of all parties were left open to be decided by the adjudicating authorities.

Facts

The Petitioners, Suyojit Infrastructure Pvt Ltd & Anr and Sun Infrastructure Pvt Ltd & Anr, challenged show cause notices issued to them under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Petitioners alleged that these notices were issued without jurisdiction as there were no valid grounds or allegations to invoke the extended period of limitation. They further claimed to have no alternate or efficacious remedies available. The Respondent is the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Nashik. The Court noted that the show cause notices contained allegations regarding suppression, among other things, in paragraph 16.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petitions are maintainable when alternate and efficacious remedies are available to the Petitioners under the CGST Act, 2017, particularly in light of averments made in the petitions? (Question of law) 2. Whether the show cause notices issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, are without jurisdiction due to the alleged absence of valid grounds or allegations to invoke the extended period of limitation? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's Contentions: The Petitioners argued that there were no valid grounds or allegations to invoke the extended period of limitation, rendering the impugned show-cause notices without jurisdiction. They also contended that they had no alternate or efficacious remedies available. Respondent's Contentions: The Respondent did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the Court's observations imply that the Respondent would rely on the existence of the statutory remedy and the allegations contained within the show cause notices.