TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses writ petition challenging GST penalty; emphasizes exhaustion of statutory remedies before seeking relief.</h1> The court dismissed the writ petition challenging an assessment order under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, which imposed a penalty for ... Levy of penalty u/s 74 (1) of the CGST Act - Validity of assessment order - suppression of turnover and evasion of tax - HELD THAT:- The remedy under Article 226 cannot be invoked by the petitioner. It is noticed from a reading of paragraph 37 of Ext.P9 that the very same contentions, now raised by the petitioner before this Court, was raised by the petitioner before the assessing officer also. Adverting to the said contentions, it was held by the assessing officer that the allegations raised against the period and the date to which the data relates have no basis. It was also observed by the assessing officer that in the mahazar prepared on 26.11.2019, it was specifically mentioned that the data related to the business transactions of the dealer for the period 14.01.2013 to 01.09.2019 and the dealer signed it without any objection. On an appreciation of the findings recorded by the assessing officer, this Court is of the view that the contentions raised by the petitioner alleging violation of natural justice was in fact raised before the assessing authority itself and even considered. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that Ext.P10 is challenged in the writ petition and that there is no appellate remedy available against Ext.P10. Though this Court was impressed with the said contention initially, on an appreciation of the reliefs claimed in this writ petition, it is noticed that no specific relief is claimed in the writ petition against Ext.P10. As held by the Supreme Court repeatedly including in the latest decision of THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX AND OTHERS VERSUS M/S COMMERCIAL STEEL LIMITED [2021 (9) TMI 480 - SUPREME COURT] where an alternate remedy exists under the statute, unless exceptional circumstances exists, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 is not liable to be invoked - petition dismissed. 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
