Sarthak Metals Limited vs. Chhattisgarh GST

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable at this juncture. The reasoning is based on the petitioner's failure to avail the alternative statutory remedy provided under Section 107 of the Chhattisgarh GST Act, 2017. The petitioner was aware of the show cause notice dated 11.06.2019 and the subsequent order dated 27.07.2019, both of which were uploaded on the online portal. Despite this knowledge, the petitioner did not respond to the show cause notice or challenge the order before the appellate authority. The writ petition was filed only after the respondents took consequential steps by debiting the input tax credit. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition will not be entertained when an efficacious alternative remedy exists and has not been pursued diligently. The Court reserved the petitioner's right to challenge the order dated 27.07.2019 before the appellate authority, if permitted by law.

Facts

The petitioner, Sarthak Metals Limited, filed a writ petition challenging the debiting of Rs. 16,40,398/- from its input tax credit. The petitioner also sought to quash an order dated 27.07.2019 and a show cause notice dated 11.06.2019, both issued by the respondents (Chhattisgarh GST and Assistant Commissioner, State Tax). The petitioner was aware of the show cause notice, which was uploaded online, but did not respond. Subsequently, the order dated 27.07.2019, passed pursuant to the show cause notice, was also uploaded online, and the petitioner was aware of it. Despite this knowledge, the petitioner did not challenge the order before the statutory appellate authority under Section 107 of the Chhattisgarh GST Act, 2017. The writ petition was filed only after the respondents debited the input tax credit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the petitioner failed to avail the alternative statutory remedy under Section 107 of the Chhattisgarh GST Act, 2017, after being aware of the show cause notice and the subsequent order? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner's argument is not explicitly recorded in the judgment regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. However, by filing the writ petition, it is implied that the petitioner sought direct intervention of the High Court. The petitioner also sought to declare the show cause notice and the order as ab-initio void. Revenue/State's Argument: The respondents' argument, as reflected in the Court's reasoning, is that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy under Section 107 of the Chhattisgarh GST Act, 2017, which was not availed promptly or within a reasonable period. The respondents contend that the writ petition was filed only after the order was acted upon, making it not maintainable at this juncture.