Ranveer Singh Saluja vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court found no reason to bypass this remedy, as all grounds raised in the petition, including those pertaining to service of notices and the address of communication, could be raised before the Appellate Authority. The Court rejected the petitioner's contention that the proceedings suffered from a patent lack of jurisdiction, noting that notices were sent to the correct address and refused by an adult member of the family. The Court also observed that the petitioner had not produced any documents to show a change of address that was duly communicated to the respondents, deeming this a disputed question of fact suitable for appeal. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's concerns regarding the 10% pre-deposit and the expired limitation period, suggesting the petitioner could file an application for condonation of delay. Furthermore, the Court noted the operational status of the GST Tribunal, providing an additional efficacious remedy after the disposal of the statutory appeal. The Court's ratio decidendi is that statutory remedies must be exhausted before approaching the High Court under Article 226, especially when the grounds raised are factual or can be adjudicated by the appellate forum. The petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Ranveer Singh Saluja, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an Order-in-Original dated 22.09.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax & Central Excise, Division-Jabalpur. The petitioner also challenged the validity of a show-cause notice dated 12.08.2022. The petitioner admitted receiving the show-cause notice and subsequent reminders but argued that the notices were refused by his brother, which he contended was not effective service. He further argued that the Order-in-Original was not effectively served as it was sent to an old parental address where he was not residing. The petitioner did not provide documents to show a change of address communicated to the respondents. The Court noted that the petitioner had not filed a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, citing the precondition of depositing 10% of the demand and the expiry of the limitation period.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, given the existence of a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, and whether the proceedings suffer from a patent lack of jurisdiction due to alleged improper service of the show-cause notice and the Order-in-Original. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the writ petition is maintainable because the proceedings lack jurisdiction due to improper service. He argued that notices were refused by his brother, which does not constitute effective service, and that the Order-in-Original was sent to an old address. He also raised the issue of the mandatory precondition of depositing 10% of the demand and the expired limitation period for filing an appeal. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the revenue. However, the Court's findings indicate that the revenue's position, as understood by the Court, was that notices were sent to the correct address and refused by an adult family member, and that the petitioner failed to provide proof of address change.