2025 (5) TMI 1733 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - No opportunity of hearing - violation of principle of natural justice - HELD THAT - From bare perusal of section 107 it is quite vivid that alternative remedy is available to him under the law even otherwise the Hon ble Supreme Court has time and again deprecated the practice of entertaining the writ petition when efficacious remedy is available under the Tax Law. Considering this aspect of the matter I am of the view that this writ petition is not entertainable. However the petitioner is at liberty to raise the plea of violation of principle of natural justice or take any permissible plea available to him under the law while preferring the appeal if so advised.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter are:

(a) Whether the impugned order passed by the Competent Officer (Deputy Commissioner State Tax) under the CGST Act, 2017, without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, is void ab initio.

(b) Whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge the said order by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or whether an alternative remedy in the form of an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, is available and adequate.

(c) The applicability and scope of Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, which governs appeals against orders passed by adjudicating authorities under the Act.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a): Validity of the impugned order passed without opportunity of hearing

The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing, rendering it void ab initio. The petitioner relied on precedents where High Courts have entertained writ petitions and set aside orders passed without hearing.

The Court examined the principle of natural justice, which mandates that a person affected by an order should be given an opportunity to be heard before such order is passed. However, the Court observed that the CGST Act, 2017, provides a detailed appellate mechanism to challenge orders of adjudicating authorities.

The Court noted that while the principle of audi alteram partem is fundamental, the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy under the statute weighs against entertaining a writ petition. The Court emphasized that the remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act is a statutory right and is intended to provide a complete and comprehensive mechanism to challenge such orders.

Issue (b): Availability and adequacy of alternative remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017

The Court reproduced Section 107 of the CGST Act, which provides for appeals to the Appellate Authority against decisions or orders passed by adjudicating authorities. The key features of Section 107 considered include:

• The time limit for filing an appeal is three months from communication of the order.
• The Commissioner's power to call for records and direct appeals within six months.
• Requirements for payment of admitted tax and a percentage of the disputed tax before filing appeal.
• Provision for stay of recovery proceedings upon payment as per sub-section (7).
• Obligation of the Appellate Authority to provide an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
• Power of the Appellate Authority to allow additional grounds, grant adjournments, and pass just and proper orders.
• Finality of the Appellate Authority's order subject to further appeals under specified sections.

The Court highlighted that the statutory framework under Section 107 is designed to ensure that grievances against tax orders are adjudicated in a fair and expeditious manner, with ample safeguards to protect the rights of the appellant, including the opportunity to be heard.

The Court further noted that the Supreme Court has consistently discouraged the use of writ jurisdiction to circumvent statutory appellate remedies, especially in tax matters where specialized adjudicatory mechanisms exist.

Issue (c): Application of law to facts and treatment of competing arguments

The petitioner's argument focused on the absence of hearing and the consequent invalidity of the order. The State's argument emphasized the availability of an alternative remedy and the statutory appellate procedure.

The Court balanced these contentions and concluded that the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act precludes the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petitioner is entitled to raise the plea of violation of natural justice before the Appellate Authority as part of the appeal proceedings.

The Court thus applied the principle that where a statutory remedy is available and adequate, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be invoked as a substitute. The petitioner's grievance regarding non-hearing can be effectively addressed in the appeal process, which mandates an opportunity of hearing.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held that:

"From bare perusal of this provision, it is quite vivid that alternative remedy is available to him under the law even otherwise the Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again deprecated the practice of entertaining the writ petition when efficacious remedy is available under the Tax Law."

The Court established the core principle that the availability of a statutory appeal mechanism under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, bars the maintainability of a writ petition challenging orders of adjudicating authorities in tax matters.

The Court concluded that the writ petition is not entertainable and the petitioner is at liberty to raise any plea, including violation of the principle of natural justice, before the Appellate Authority while preferring the appeal.