Vsr Engineers And Consultants Through Its Authorized Representative Shri Abhishek Mishra vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that it should not bypass the alternative remedy of appeal except in exceptional circumstances. Regarding the petitioner's argument that the appellate authority's lack of power to remand makes the appeal inefficacious, the Court found that Section 107(11) grants the appellate authority wide powers to conduct further inquiries and pass just and proper orders, which is broader than the High Court's writ jurisdiction. The Court also addressed the violation of natural justice claim, stating that a person must point out prejudice caused by the violation. The petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice, especially since they possessed the best evidence (documents of their business) and withheld it. The Court concluded that highly disputed questions of fact were involved and the petitioner had not made out any exceptional circumstance to bypass the statutory remedy. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to avail the alternative remedy of appeal.

Facts

The petitioner, VSR Engineers and Consultants, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 5/2/2026 passed by the Superintendent (GST), Range Morena, which cancelled their GST registration. The show cause notice alleged that the petitioner issued false/fake invoices without supplying goods or services and availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) in violation of Section 16 of the Act. The petitioner conceded that the order was appealable but argued that the appellate authority's lack of power to remand the matter made the appeal remedy inefficacious. The respondent argued that the allegations involved disputed questions of fact and the petitioner's reply was vague, lacking supporting documents.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should bypass the alternative remedy of appeal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, given that the appellate authority under Section 107(11) of the CGST Act, 2017, lacks the power to remand the matter? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the appellate authority's inability to remand the case, especially when the cancellation order was passed without inquiry, renders the appeal remedy ineffective. They also argued that their right to natural justice was violated because the department did not supply requested documents, and this constitutes an exceptional circumstance for the High Court to entertain the writ petition. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that the allegations of issuing fake invoices without supply constitute highly disputed questions of fact. They asserted that the petitioner failed to provide any documents to support their claim of supplying goods or services, making their reply vague and not warranting further inquiry by the assessing authority.