Dezy Sagar Agarwal vs. Union Of INDIA Through Joint Secretary And Ors

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner's contention regarding the failure of natural justice due to lack of hearing notice could not be accepted prima facie, as at least three intimations were sent to the Petitioner's registered address, which was consistently used. However, the Court noted that, prima facie, copies of "unrelied documents" were not furnished to the Petitioner despite their request. The Court concluded that this was not a case of "no notice" but at best "no adequate notice," and in such cases, prejudice must be established. Accordingly, the Court found it was not a fit case to deviate from the usual rule of exhausting alternate remedies. The Petitioner was granted liberty to raise all pleas, including failure of natural justice and merits, before the appellate authority. The Court directed the Respondents to furnish copies of all seized documents (as per Panchanama) to the Petitioner within two weeks, with the Petitioner to visit the office on 25 October 2024 to obtain them and bear the expenses. The petition was disposed of, relegating the Petitioner to the alternate remedy of appeal, with a direction that if an appeal is filed within six weeks, the Appellate Authority will decide it on merits, considering the petition's pendency and the Petitioner's bonafide pursuit.

Facts

The Petitioner, Dezy Sagar Agarwal, Proprietor of M/s. Neelam Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original dated 30 November 2023, passed by the Joint Commissioner CGST (Respondent No.3). The Petitioner contended that there was a failure of natural justice due to the non-furnishing of non-relied-upon documents and the absence of a hearing notice. The Respondents argued that the Petitioner had an alternate efficacious remedy of appeal and that relied-upon documents were provided. They also asserted that three intimations for oral hearing were sent to the Petitioner's registered address, which remained unchanged and was used on official correspondence and the petition itself.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to maintain a writ petition before this Court, notwithstanding the availability of an alternate statutory remedy of appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), in light of the alleged failure of natural justice? (Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, and principles of exhaustion of alternate remedies). Petitioner's arguments: The Petitioner argued that a failure of natural justice is a well-recognized exception to the rule of exhausting alternate remedies, and therefore, the writ petition is maintainable. Specifically, the Petitioner contended that copies of non-relied-upon documents were not provided despite requests, and there was no notice of the hearing, leading to their inability to participate. Respondents' arguments: The Respondents contended that the Petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy of appeal. They argued that relied-upon documents were furnished and that the Petitioner received three intimations for oral hearings at their registered address, which had not changed. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot claim a failure of natural justice.