Syed Mohamed Pattani vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer
Held
The Court noted that the adequacy of evidence is not examinable under Article 226, especially when an alternate remedy exists. The petitioner was granted liberty to avail the statutory remedy of appeal.
Facts
The petitioner challenged an order passed by the respondent under GST, alleging violation of natural justice. The respondent had issued a show cause notice regarding discrepancies in returns and claimed Input Tax Credit from ineligible suppliers, to which the petitioner replied but allegedly failed to submit supporting documents.
Key Issues
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 when an alternate statutory remedy of appeal is available. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated in the passing of the impugned order.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the order dated 27.08.2024 on the ground that the same is made in violation of principles of natural justice.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is engaged in supply of fertilizers and is a registered dealer
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.