M/S Sri Sarang Steel, Through Its Proprietor Manoj Kumar vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Department Of State Tax

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sri Sarang Steel, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte adjudication order dated 30.12.2023 issued under Section 73(9) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner claimed it had no alternative remedy and was not served with any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The respondents, through a counter-affidavit, stated that a notice in form ASMT-10 was served via registered email on 08.09.2023, and a detailed show cause notice in DRC-01 was issued on 24.11.2023 and uploaded on the GSTN portal, to which the petitioner failed to respond. The petitioner disputed receiving any notices and claimed knowledge of the order only on 24.07.2025.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable because the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court found the petitioner's statement that no alternative remedy was available to be misleading. Furthermore, the Court determined that the allegations of non-service of notices and violation of natural justice involved seriously disputed questions of fact, which cannot ordinarily be resolved in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors. Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, emphasizing that statutory mechanisms for challenging orders should not be bypassed. The Court dismissed the petition but granted the petitioner liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order, leaving all contentions open for the appellate authority to decide.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is available to the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner was denied principles of natural justice due to alleged non-service of show cause notice and opportunity of hearing? The petitioner argued that the impugned order was ex parte and thus no efficacious alternative remedy existed, justifying the writ jurisdiction. They contended that non-service of a show cause notice and a hearing opportunity under Section 75(4) violated natural justice, and such violations typically warrant bypassing the alternative remedy. The respondents argued that the petitioner made a misleading statement about the absence of an alternative remedy. They asserted that notices were duly served via registered email and uploaded on the GST portal, and the petitioner's denial raised seriously disputed questions of fact not suitable for writ jurisdiction. The respondents relied on Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors. Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, (2020) 19 SCC 681.