Court dismisses writ petition challenging penalty order, emphasizes need to exhaust statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a penalty order for lack of reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Court noted the availability of an appeal remedy under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and declined to entertain the petition, emphasizing the need to exhaust statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention. The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue the appeal as per the law.

---

---

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty without reasonable opportunity of hearing.
2. Preliminary objection on maintainability due to alternative remedy of appeal under Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

Issue 1: Imposition of penalty without reasonable opportunity of hearing

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 25.01.2020 by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Anti Evasion Bureau, Jabalpur, imposing a penalty. The petitioner's counsel argued that the order was passed without granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to present their case. However, the Court noted that a remedy of appeal is available against the impugned order under the law. The Court, therefore, declined to entertain the petition, emphasizing the availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal for the petitioner. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition, granting the petitioner liberty to pursue the appeal as per the law.

Issue 2: Preliminary objection on maintainability due to alternative remedy of appeal under Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017

The Government Advocate for the State raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition. The objection was based on the availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal under the provisions of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 against the impugned order. The Court acknowledged the existence of the appeal remedy and held that since such a recourse was available to the petitioner, the present petition could not be entertained. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition, allowing the petitioner the opportunity to pursue the appeal in accordance with the law.

This judgment by the Madhya Pradesh High Court highlights the importance of exhausting alternative remedies available under specific statutes before seeking judicial intervention. The Court emphasized the significance of following the prescribed legal procedures and availing the statutory remedies provided by law.

---