Canara Bank (Successor-In-Interest TO Syndicate Bank Upon Amalgamation) vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The High Court held that when an efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available, the writ court ordinarily should not entertain a writ petition. Citing the Supreme Court's judgments in *United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tandon* and *PHR Invent Educational Society Vs. UCO Bank*, the Court emphasized that legislations for recovery of public dues, taxes, etc., contain comprehensive procedures and quasi-judicial bodies for grievance redressal, and parties must exhaust these remedies first. The Court found that the impugned order was passed under Section 73(1) of the GST Act, and it was undisputed that such an order is appealable under Section 107 of the GST Act. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The question of whether the petitioner was able to operate its e-mail was deemed a matter that could be determined by the appellate authority. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, with the petitioner granted liberty to avail the remedy available under the law.

Facts

The petitioner, Canara Bank (successor to Syndicate Bank), filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 30/06/2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Raipur, under Section 73(1) of the GST Act for the tax period 2018-19. The petitioner also challenged a notice dated 08/07/2021 and a garnishee notice dated 08/02/2024. The petitioner argued that notice was sent to the e-mail of Syndicate Bank, which had merged with Canara Bank, and thus, there was no proper service of notice, violating principles of natural justice. The State contended that an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act was available, and the issue of notice service was a factual dispute not suitable for writ jurisdiction.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 73(1) of the GST Act when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act is available? (Question of law) 2. Whether the issue of proper service of notice, particularly when the entity to whom notice was addressed has undergone amalgamation, can be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction, or if it requires factual determination by the appellate authority? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned order should be quashed due to improper service of notice, as the notice was sent to the e-mail of the erstwhile Syndicate Bank, which had merged with Canara Bank. This lack of proper service, they argued, violates the principles of natural justice and the mandate of the GST Act. They relied on the Chhattisgarh High Court's decision in *Mahendra Sponge and Power Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner State Tax (SGST)*. State's arguments: The State argued that the order passed under Section 73(1) is appealable under Section 107 of the GST Act, providing an efficacious alternative remedy. They asserted that the factual dispute regarding the non-service of notice cannot be decided by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction.