Shri Shailesh Rajpal Proprietor S/M Saisun vs. The Union Of INDIA
Held
The High Court dismissed the writ petition. Citing the Supreme Court judgments in State of Maharashtra & Others v/s Greatship (India) Limited and PHR Invent Educational Society v/s UCO Bank & Others, the Court held that it erred in entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution when an effective alternative statutory remedy of appeal was available. The Court noted that the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice on 05.04.2021, and the impugned order was passed on 14.02.2025. During this period, the petitioner did not raise any complaint about the violation of the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the efficacious remedy of appeal is available, and the writ petition is not liable to be entertained. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise all grounds before the appellate authority, which is competent to examine them. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.
Facts
The petitioner, Shri Shailesh Rajpal, proprietor of S/M Saisun, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 14.02.2025. The petitioner was a director of M/s Saisun Outsourcing Private Limited, which provided manpower recruitment services. The company's premises were searched on 12.03.2019 and 13.03.2019 for financial years 2014-15 to 2017-18. A show-cause notice dated 30.08.2019 was issued to the company for non-payment of taxes. The petitioner was arrested and later released on bail. The Central CGST Department attached the company's and the petitioner's bank accounts. A subsequent show-cause notice dated 05.04.2021 was issued, which the petitioner claims violated Rule 142 of the CGST Rules, 2017, and the impugned order lacked a DIN. The petitioner acknowledged an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act but argued it was not a bar due to violation of natural justice.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an effective alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, as per the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra & Others v/s Greatship (India) Limited and PHR Invent Educational Society v/s UCO Bank & Others? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the alternative remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act is not a bar in this case because the impugned order was passed in violation of the principle of natural justice and without mentioning the Document Identification Number (DIN). Revenue's Contention: The respondents, represented by their respective counsel, implicitly argued that the writ petition should not be entertained due to the availability of an effective alternative remedy, as supported by the Supreme Court judgments cited.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Rule 142
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER Per: Justice Vivek Rusia The petitioner has filed this present petition seeking the following relief(s): "7(i) That, your Lordship(s) may be pleased to issue of Writ of |Certiorari or any other Writ, Order or Direction to quash the impugned order dated 14.02.2025 (Annexure-P/1). (ii) That, your Lordship(s) may be pleased to remand the matterto the Adjudicating Authority (Respondent No.2) for de- novo adjudication by granting opportunity of hearing before passing the order. 1 WP-19010-2025 (iii) That, to grant ad-interim relief in the interest of justice. (iv) That your Lordship(s) may be pleased to grant any other relief that may
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.