M/S Lucent Inron And Steel Traders vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable. It reasoned that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy available under Section 107 of the CGST Act to challenge the impugned order. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and others Vs. Commercial Steel Limited, which stated that while the existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, it can only be entertained in exceptional circumstances such as a breach of fundamental rights, violation of principles of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or a challenge to the vires of a statute. The Court found that none of these exceptions were established in the present case. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated December 27, 2023, and the impugned order also noted that the petitioner did not respond to communications from the jurisdictional Range Officer or the DRC-01A. Therefore, there was no violation of fundamental rights or principles of natural justice. The Court declined to entertain the writ petition invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction and disposed of it at that stage, granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Lucent Iron and Steel Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated April 26, 2024, passed by the Joint Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise Tax, Raipur. The petitioner sought to quash this order and direct the respondents to allow rectification of their GSTR-3B return for October 2018, waiving an erroneous liability of Rs. 5,00,24,576, including interest and penalties. The petitioner stated that due to an inadvertent error by their consultant, data from another company, M/s. Lucent Steel Pvt. Ltd., was mistakenly filed in their GSTR-3B return for October 2018, leading to incorrect declaration of taxable supplies and wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 5,02,39,154. The petitioner claims to have informed the authorities on November 30, 2018, but their request for rectification was not accepted. Subsequently, a Show Cause Notice was issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, given the existence of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the alternative remedy of appeal before the CGST Appellate Tribunal is inadequate and ineffective because it requires a pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed tax amount. Therefore, the writ petition should be admitted. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the writ petition is not maintainable as there is an efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the CGST Act, which allows for an appeal against the order passed by the Joint Commissioner. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and others Vs. Commercial Steel Limited.