Tanushree Logistics Private Limited vs. State Of Rajasthan

Held

The Court held that the writ petitions were not maintainable. Applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court in cases such as State of Maharashtra and Others Versus Greatship (India) and State of Madhya Pradesh and Another Versus Commercial Engineers and Body Building Company Limited, the Court reiterated that when a statutory forum for redressal of grievances is created, especially in a fiscal statute, a writ petition should not be entertained bypassing the statutory remedy. The Court found that the Petitioner had not shown any valid reasons to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The Court noted that while writ petitions are generally maintainable under Article 226, judicial prudence demands that courts refrain from exercising this jurisdiction when an equally efficacious alternative remedy is available, except in limited circumstances not demonstrated by the Petitioner. Therefore, the objection to the maintainability of the writ petitions was sustained. The Court dismissed the writ petitions, leaving it open for the Petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act. The Court further directed that the period during which the petitions remained pending before the High Court shall not be counted for the purpose of limitation in filing the appeal.

Facts

The Petitioner, Tanushree Logistics Private Limited, filed three writ petitions challenging assessment orders passed by the respondents under Sections 50 & 74 of the Rajasthan Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The assessment orders pertained to the tax periods 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-2020, and included levies of tax, interest, and penalty. The Petitioner contended that the assessment orders were passed in violation of principles of natural justice and statutory provisions, particularly regarding the issuance of show cause notices and consideration of their replies. The Respondents objected to the maintainability of the writ petitions, arguing that an efficacious alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act was available to the Petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petitions are maintainable before the High Court challenging an assessment order under the Rajasthan Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act is available? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that the writ petitions were maintainable despite the availability of an alternative remedy because the impugned assessment orders suffered from flagrant violations of principles of natural justice and statutory provisions. Specifically, they contended that no specific hearing date was intimated, their reply dated 11.11.2022 was not considered, it was incorrectly stated that they did not participate, mandatory requirements of Section 74 and Rule 142 (DRC-01 summary) were violated, crucial documents were not supplied, and they were denied the three opportunities stipulated under Section 75(5). They also argued the show cause notice and order were vague and the issue was prejudged. Respondents' Arguments: The Respondents argued that the writ petitions were not maintainable. They asserted that they acted strictly in accordance with law, providing multiple opportunities for the Petitioner to submit information and replies, commencing from summons under Section 70 in 2019. They detailed a history of adjournments sought by the Petitioner and stated that the Petitioner only kept seeking adjournments and failed to file a reply, leading to the final order. They also contended that any violation of issuing DRC-01 was technical and the purpose of providing the summary was met.