Ve Commercial Vehicle LTD. Through Mr. Nitin Nagda Vice President Indirect Taxation And Shared Servi vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an efficacious and effective alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court relied on the Apex Court's decision in State of Maharashtra & Others v/s Greatship (India) Limited, which held that High Courts should not entertain writ petitions against assessment orders when statutory remedies are available. The Court found that all grounds raised by the petitioner, including those related to interpretations of GST provisions, notifications, principles of natural justice, double taxation, res judicata, jurisdiction, and limitation, are matters that can and should be considered by the appellate authority. The Court observed that the appellate authority would also consider any delay in approaching them upon filing an application for condonation of delay. Therefore, the Court relegated the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal. The Court expressly left undecided the merits of the petitioner's claims regarding the GST demand, natural justice, and reassessment.

Facts

The petitioner, VE Commercial Vehicle Ltd., is challenging an Order-in-Original dated January 30, 2025, passed by respondent No. 3, which confirmed a Goods and Services Tax (GST) demand of Rs. 22,56,93,992/- for the financial year 2017-18, along with interest and penalty. The petitioner received a show-cause notice on December 27, 2023, alleging short payment of outward tax liability of Rs. 22,58,38,390/- based on a comparison of tax liability declared and paid as per GSTR-9. The petitioner refuted these allegations. The petitioner also highlighted a previous appeal order dated December 20, 2024, which confirmed a demand of Rs. 13,672,690/- for the same financial year, arguing that reassessment for the same period is impermissible. The respondents contended that the writ petition bypasses the statutory appellate remedy and that the show-cause notices covered different issues.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, given the petitioner's contentions regarding double taxation, res judicata, jurisdiction, and limitation? 2. Whether the impugned Order-in-Original is vitiated by a violation of the principles of natural justice due to the confirmation of demand on a new ground not mentioned in the show-cause notice? 3. Whether reassessment for the financial year 2017-18 is permissible after a prior appeal order for the same year has been passed? Petitioner's arguments: The respondents confirmed the demand on a new ground not in the show-cause notice, violating natural justice. The tax liability for FY 2017-18 was already addressed in a prior appeal order dated December 20, 2024, making further reassessment impermissible. The writ petition is maintainable due to issues of double taxation, res judicata, jurisdiction, and limitation. Revenue's arguments: All grounds raised by the petitioner should be considered by the appellate authority, and the petitioner cannot bypass the statutory remedy under Article 226. The show-cause notices covered different issues, and rectification of errors or omissions is permissible under the proviso to Section 37(3) of the CGST Act.