2025 (6) TMI 581 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - service of consolidated notice - HELD THAT - The learned counsel for respondent No.3 seeks time to make a search contrary to the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the arguments advanced by him. To follow the natural justice an opportunity must be given to the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 to comment on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the issue of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Issue notice to the respondents returnable on 14.02.2025.

Summary

The Bombay High Court, per Hon'ble JJ. Mehare and Brahme, addressed a petition challenging a consolidated GST notice issued by respondent No.3 for the years 2017-2021, demanding Rs. 71,23,02,689/- plus an equal fine. The petitioner contended that issuing a consolidated notice was impermissible and that the tax demand was unjustified, particularly as Extra Neutral Alcohol (ENA) is not taxable under GST, citing the Supreme Court's decision in *State of U.P. & Ors. v. M/s. Lalta Prasad Vaish & Sons*, 2024 INSC 812, which settled this issue.Respondent No.3 argued that an efficacious alternate remedy under Section 107 of the Central GST Act, 2017, precluded exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227. The Court, however, found prima facie merit in entertaining the petition under Article 226, allowing the petitioner's challenge to proceed, while keeping open the question of jurisdiction pending further submissions from respondent No.3.An interim stay was granted on the impugned order, and notices were issued to respondents with service waived by their counsel. The Court emphasized adherence to natural justice by permitting respondent No.3 to respond on the jurisdictional issue. The petition was tagged with Writ Petition No.13627 of 2024 and listed for further hearing on 14.02.2025.