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>Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Adjudication Order, Emphasizes Statutory Remedies</h1> The High Court of Calcutta dismissed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order by the GST Authority. The court found that the petitioners were not ... Principles of natural justice - validity of adjudication order - appealable order - main ground of challenge of the impugned adjudication order by the petitioners is that though the impugned adjudication order is appealable but the same is without jurisdiction and there is violation of principle of natural justice by not affording them opportunity of hearing - HELD THAT:- It is a settled law that opportunity of hearing may be afforded either by way of allowing the petitioners to make any written representation for their case or it may be by allowing personal hearing and in this case petitioners were allowed to make written representation/objection and when petitioners have not asked for personal hearing and petitioners have not been able to show any provision of relevant laws mandating the authority to give personal hearing, question of violation of principles of natural justice does not arise in this case. It is relevant to note that Section 75(4) of the GST Act simply says about hearing and not about personal hearing. Exercising a jurisdiction in an irregular manner by an authority is different from exercising a jurisdiction by the authority having inherent jurisdiction. I do not find that the Authority, who has issued the show-cause-notice and passed the adjudication order, is having inherent lack of jurisdiction under the statute or he is not authorised to exercise the jurisdiction of adjudication in the case of the petitioners. If the petitioners are not satisfied with the impugned adjudication order or reasons according to petitioners in not sufficient or proper, it can be a case of appeal but not a case for invoking Constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also not a case where the petitioners are remediless against the impugned adjudication order; Forum for statutory alternative remedy is already available to the petitioners. Petition dismissed. Issues: Challenge to impugned adjudication order on grounds of jurisdiction and violation of natural justice.In this judgment, the High Court of Calcutta addressed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order passed by the GST Authority. The petitioners contended that the order was without jurisdiction and violated the principles of natural justice by not providing them with an opportunity of hearing. The court examined the grounds raised by the petitioners and found them unconvincing. It noted that a show-cause notice had been issued to the petitioners, and they had responded to it in writing without requesting a personal hearing. The court emphasized that the opportunity of hearing could be through written representation or personal hearing, and in this case, the petitioners had opted for written representation. The court highlighted that the relevant law did not mandate personal hearing in this instance, and therefore, there was no violation of natural justice.Regarding the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority, the court found that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any inherent lack of jurisdiction on the part of the authority. The court distinguished between exercising jurisdiction irregularly and lacking inherent jurisdiction. It concluded that the Adjudicating Authority had the necessary jurisdiction to issue the impugned order in the case of the petitioners. The court clarified that dissatisfaction with the adjudication order could be a ground for appeal but not for invoking constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The court also highlighted that statutory alternative remedies were available to the petitioners, making them not remediless against the impugned adjudication order. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the forum for statutory alternative remedy was already accessible to the petitioners, and the impugned order did not suffer from jurisdictional or natural justice defects.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
