9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1636X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,28,99,290/- for the period from March, 2022 to March, 2023 and Rs. 87,13,636/- for the period April, 2023 to February 2024. The Petitioners have also assailed the ITC Block Notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax dated 12.08.2024. 3. The case of the Petitioners herein is that the Petitioners admittedly had taken refunds on 18.01.2024 for Rs. 98,72,907/- for the period March, 2022 to March, 2023 and further on 13.03.2024 another amount of Rs. 75,16,516/- for the period April, 2023 to February, 2024. Subsequent thereto, a Show Cause Notice was issued by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax dated 09.04.2024 in exercise of the powers under Section 74 of the Assam Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'the Act of 2017') asking the Petitioners to show cause as to why the Petitioners should not refund the amount which have been erroneously refunded on 18.01.2024 and 13.03.2024 respectively along with interest and penalty. In the said Show Cause Notice, it was specifically mentioned that the reply should be provided within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The Petitioner thereupon submitted a prayer on 08.05.2024 in FORM GST ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ety Vs. UCO Bank and Others reported in (2024) 6 SCC 579 wherein the Supreme Court had categorically observed at paragraph No. 23 that the High Court should ordinarily not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person. The learned counsel further submitted that the Supreme Court had observed that the Rule of self imposed restriction should be applied with great rigor in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees or other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. He therefore submitted that in the instant case, as the exceptional circumstances do not exist, the question of exercising the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution do not arise. The learned counsel further submitted that the issues which have been raised in the instant proceedings can very well be agitated before the Appellate Forum under Section 107 of the Assam GST Act, 2017. 6. Replying to the said submission, Ms. N. Hawelia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that in the instant case there is a violation of the principles of natural justice and the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person. The Supreme Court further emphasized that this Rule should be applied with great rigor in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and dues of the bank and financial institution. It was further observed that though the powers under Article 226 are of widest amplitude, still the Court cannot be oblivious of the Rules of self-imposed restraint evolved. 9. Be that as it may, this Court also finds it very pertinent to take note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs. Excise and Taxation Officer cum Accessing Authority and Others reported in (2023) 109 GSTR 402. This judgment is being referred to by this Court taking into account that as to under what circumstances the Writ Court can exercise its jurisdiction in spite of availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court observed that in cases (i) Where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any fundamental rights; or (ii) where there is a violation of the principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the order or the proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the instant proceedings. 13. Accordingly, this Court for the reasons aforestated is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition insofar as the challenge to the impugned order dated 12.08.2024 on the ground of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy. However, the Petitioner herein would be at liberty to file an appeal under Section 107 of the AGST Act, 2017. 14. It is further observed that non-entertaining of the instant writ petition would not prejudice the Petitioners in such appeal to be filed. In addition to that, the Petitioners would be entitled to raise all the issues which the Petitioners could have legally raised in the instant proceedings and also submits all such documents in their defence before the Appellate Authority. 15. Before parting with the records, this Court finds it pertinent to take note of the submissions made by Ms. N. Hawelia, the learned counsel to that effect that while filing an appeal, there would be a requirement of deposit of 10% of the tax amount. She submitted that as the accounts of the Petitioner No. 2 as well as of his relatives have also been blocked as would be apparent from the Show Cause Notice dated 09.04.2024 itself, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
