Mahendra Sponge And Power Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable. While acknowledging that the existence of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction, the Court found no 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, to justify entertaining the writ petition. The Court noted that the Petitioner had been issued a notice under Section 61, followed by a show-cause notice under Section 73, and an impugned order determining tax liabilities, interest, and penalty was passed. The Court reasoned that the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, was available to challenge the order of the adjudicating authority. The Petitioner was granted liberty to pursue this statutory remedy.

Facts

The Petitioner, Mahendra Sponge & Power Limited, challenged an order dated 02.02.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax (SGST) under Section 73(9) of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, demanding Rs. 85,15,273/-. The demand arose from alleged excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Rs. 27,54,730/- availed during the period 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020. The Petitioner contended that the Respondent failed to provide details of the excess ITC claim and issued a show-cause notice under Section 73 without proper allegations. The Petitioner had previously filed WPT No. 221/2021 challenging the proceedings. The Respondent argued that an efficacious alternate remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act was available and that the Petitioner failed to respond to notices issued.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017? The Petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice due to lack of proper opportunity of hearing and insufficient details in the show-cause notice, thus warranting invocation of the writ jurisdiction. They relied on cases like CCE v. Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd. and Siemens Ltd v. State of Maharashtra. The Respondent contended that the writ petition is not maintainable as Section 107 provides an efficacious alternate remedy, citing the Supreme Court's decision in The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and others v. M/s Commercial Steel Limited. They asserted that the Petitioner failed to respond to notices and instead sought adjournments.