Alligare Chem Private Limited vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not entertainable due to the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. The Court noted that the Supreme Court has consistently discouraged the entertainment of writ petitions when such statutory remedies are available. While dismissing the writ petition on maintainability grounds, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to raise the plea of violation of the principle of natural justice, or any other permissible plea, before the appellate authority if they choose to file an appeal. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the violation of natural justice.

Facts

The petitioner, Alligare Chem Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Chhattisgarh High Court challenging an order dated 16.08.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax, Raipur. The petitioner contended that the impugned order fastening tax liabilities was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing, rendering it void ab initio. The petitioner cited instances where High Courts entertained similar writ petitions. The respondents, represented by the State counsel, argued that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, and therefore, the writ petition should not be entertained.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, particularly when the petitioner alleges violation of the principle of natural justice (lack of opportunity of hearing)? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order is void ab initio due to the complete denial of the opportunity of hearing, a violation of the principle of natural justice. They submitted that various High Courts have entertained writ petitions in such circumstances, implying that the availability of an alternative remedy does not preclude High Court intervention when fundamental procedural rights are violated. Revenue's contention: The State counsel opposed the petition, asserting that Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, provides an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal. They relied on the general principle that High Courts should not entertain writ petitions when a statutory appeal mechanism exists, as repeatedly deprecated by the Supreme Court.