Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.

Facts

The petitioner, Md Akhtar Ansari, proprietor of M/s Indian Associates, challenged a show-cause notice dated 25.11.2024, other related notices, and a summary order dated 19.02.2025 under Section 73(9) of the JGST, 2017, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of SGST, Bokaro Circle. The petitioner sought to quash these notices and the order. The respondents are various authorities of the State Tax Department of Jharkhand. The petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The Court heard arguments from both the petitioner and the respondents.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition should be dismissed because the petitioner has not made out a case for the impugned notices being ex facie without jurisdiction. Citing Supreme Court judgments in Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, Thansingh Nathmal v. Supdt. of Taxes, State of Maharashtra v. Greatship (India) Ltd., and United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, the Court emphasized that writ petitions should not be entertained to bypass available statutory remedies unless there are extraordinary or exceptional circumstances, such as the authority acting entirely without jurisdiction or the very vires of the statute being in question. The Court found that the petitioner could raise all contentions, including jurisdictional issues, before the issuing authority by responding to the show-cause notice. If the petitioner remains aggrieved, statutory appeals are available. The Court explicitly stated that it had not adjudicated upon the merits or demerits of the petitioner's contentions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging a show-cause notice and subsequent orders when alternative statutory remedies are available, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner argued that the impugned notices and order were without jurisdiction and attracted the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks. The petitioner contended that the High Court should intervene to prevent a jurisdictional error. The respondents, through the Additional Commissioner to the Advocate General, argued that the petitioner should first respond to the show-cause notice and raise all contentions before the issuing authority, as per established Supreme Court precedents like Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Thansingh Nathmal v. Supdt. of Taxes. They emphasized that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised to bypass statutory remedies unless there are exceptional circumstances, citing State of Maharashtra v. Greatship (India) Ltd.