Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, Mufti Clothing and Co., filed a Writ Petition challenging a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 04.05.2026, an original order dated 08.07.2026, and a rectification order dated 08.07.2026, all passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), the first respondent. These orders pertained to the Financial Year 2020-21. The petitioner contended that the SCN and subsequent orders were issued without jurisdiction, by an authority who had become functus officio, were impermissible in law, violative of the doctrine of finality, barred by limitation, and in breach of natural justice. The petitioner also highlighted a dropping order dated 26.02.2025 concerning the same issues under Section 73 of the GST statutes.

Held

The High Court declined to entertain the Writ Petition, citing the existence of an alternative statutory remedy. The Court noted that the impugned orders were issued in July 2026 after considering the petitioner's reply. While the petitioner raised several grounds, including jurisdictional issues, limitation, and breach of natural justice, the Court did not delve into the merits of these contentions. Instead, it directed the petitioner to pursue the available appellate route. The Court explicitly left open the petitioner's option to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Writ Petition was disposed of on the ground of alternative remedy, with no order as to costs.

Key Issues

1. Whether the invocation of Section 74 of the applicable GST statutes was permissible to overcome the bar of limitation under Section 73, considering a prior dropping order under Section 73 for the same issues? (Question of law) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that Section 74 was invoked solely to circumvent the limitation period prescribed under Section 73. They relied on a dropping order dated 26.02.2025, which purportedly settled the same issues under Section 73, suggesting that the current proceedings under Section 74 were therefore barred and lacked jurisdiction. The petitioner also raised grounds of the authority being functus officio, violation of the doctrine of finality, limitation, and breach of natural justice. Revenue's Arguments: The learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents accepted notice and pointed out that the impugned order itself contained the justification for invoking Section 74. No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue regarding the petitioner's contentions on limitation or the applicability of Section 74 versus Section 73.