M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax

Held

The Court noted that the availability of an effective alternative appellate remedy against the impugned order dated 30.09.2026 was not in dispute. The Petitioner had been issued a Show Cause Notice dated 06.03.2026 but failed to file a reply, a fact disputed by the Petitioner who claimed to have filed one. Furthermore, the Petitioner was granted opportunities for personal hearing on three occasions but did not appear. The impugned order also alleged suppression of material facts and unexplained discrepancies found during an audit, leading the Adjudicating Authority to invoke jurisdiction under Section 74 of the CGST Act. In light of these circumstances, the Court held that the Petitioner, if advised, could avail the remedy of appeal. The Court explicitly stated that it had made no observations on the merits of the case and that the Appellate Authority would decide the appeal in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made in this order.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s Rentex Polymers Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 30.09.2026 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax. The Petitioner was issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 06.03.2026, to which it claims to have filed a reply, a claim disputed by the Respondent. The impugned order notes that the Petitioner was granted opportunities for personal hearing on three occasions but failed to appear. The Petitioner is alleged to have suppressed material facts, with discrepancies noted during an audit that remained unexplained. The Adjudicating Authority invoked jurisdiction under Section 74 of the CGST Act. The availability of an effective alternative appellate remedy was not disputed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner has an effective alternative appellate remedy against the impugned order dated 30.09.2026, considering the Petitioner's failure to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice and appear for personal hearings, as per Section 74 of the CGST Act? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner contended that they had filed a reply to the SCN, though this was disputed by the Respondent. The Petitioner implicitly sought to bypass the appellate remedy by approaching the High Court. Respondent's Contention: The Respondent argued that the Petitioner failed to file a reply to the SCN and did not appear for personal hearings on multiple occasions, despite being granted opportunities. The Respondent highlighted that an effective alternative appellate remedy was available, and the Adjudicating Authority had invoked jurisdiction under Section 74 of the CGST Act.