Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2021 (11) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2021 (11) TMI 228 - HC - GST


Issues:
Challenge to assessment order under CGST Act - Imposition of penalty for alleged suppression of turnover and tax evasion - Invocation of Article 226 - Violation of natural justice - Maintainability of writ petition - Availability of appellate remedy against decision.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an assessment order (Ext.P9) under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, which imposed a penalty for alleged suppression of turnover and tax evasion. The petitioner contended that the assessing officer did not provide copies of all documents used against them, violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking relief. The Senior Government Pleader argued that all documents were indeed served to the petitioner, and the court should not interfere in factual disputes under Article 226.

The court observed that the contentions raised by the petitioner were already presented before the assessing officer, who had considered and rejected them. The assessing officer noted that the data in question related to the business transactions of the dealer for a specific period, and the dealer had signed the relevant document without objection. The court held that disputed questions of fact should not be entertained under writ jurisdiction, and the petitioner's contentions lacked merit. Therefore, the court found that the remedy under Article 226 could not be invoked in this case.

The petitioner also challenged another decision (Ext.P10) in the writ petition, claiming no appellate remedy was available against it. However, the court noted that no specific relief was sought against Ext.P10 in the petition. Additionally, Ext.P10 was subject to appeal under Section 107, making it not maintainable for review under Article 226. Citing precedent, the court emphasized that unless exceptional circumstances exist, the jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be invoked when an alternate statutory remedy is available.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to pursue statutory remedies as per the law. The judgment highlighted the importance of exhausting appellate remedies before seeking relief under Article 226, especially when disputed questions of fact are involved.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates