Tax Assessment Challenge Rejected: Statutory Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Bars Direct Writ Petition

HC dismissed writ petitions challenging tax assessment orders under RGST Act. Court held that statutory remedy under Section 107 of CGST Act was available, rendering writ petitions non-maintainable. Petitioner's decision not to opt for personal hearing weakened their case. Court directed petitioner to pursue appellate remedy without awarding costs.

---

---

Issues:
Identical assessment orders under Sec.74(1) of RGST Act, 2017 challenged in three writ petitions - Maintainability of writ petitions due to availability of statutory remedy under Section 107 of CGST Act - Allegations of suppression of material facts by the petitioner.

Analysis:
The High Court addressed three writ petitions involving identical assessment orders dated 22.04.2021 passed by the Joint Commissioner under Sec.74(1) of the RGST Act, 2017, levying tax, interest, and penalty on the petitioner. Counsel for the respondent raised objections on the maintainability of the writ petitions, citing the Supreme Court judgments in specific cases. It was argued that since the statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act was available to the petitioner, the writ petitions were not maintainable. The respondent also alleged that the petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands, suppressing material facts, as evidenced by the petitioner's choice of not opting for a personal hearing in Form GST DRC-06 submitted on 15.04.2021.

The Court noted that the petitioner had indeed chosen not to opt for a personal hearing, indicating a conscious decision. Consequently, the Court opined that the assessment orders were not passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax case, the Court concluded that the writ petitions were not maintainable. The petitioner's counsel did not contest this assertion made by the respondent regarding the petitioner's decision not to opt for a personal hearing, further weakening the petitioner's case for the writ petitions.

Given the above findings, the Court decided not to delve into the issue of concealment of material facts and directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy of filing appeals against the impugned orders under Section 107 of the CGST Act. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petitions, emphasizing that the dismissal did not prevent the petitioner from availing the appellate remedy. No costs were awarded in the judgment. The decision was based on the principle that the availability of a statutory remedy precluded the maintainability of the writ petitions, as established by relevant legal precedents.

---