Writ petitions held not maintainable; dismissed for lack of natural justice breach and partial disclosure, appeal under Section 107 advised

HC held the writ petitions not maintainable and dismissed them. The court found no violation of natural justice or fundamental rights, noting multiple summons and three opportunities to be heard and that the petitioner furnished only partial information. As there was no excess of jurisdiction or challenge to the vires of the statute, HC declined to examine the correctness of the assessment order and directed the petitioner to pursue the efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107. Objection on maintainability sustained; petitions dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petitions in light of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Rajasthan Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
2. Alleged violation of principles of natural justice by the respondents.
3. Compliance with statutory provisions, particularly the issuance of show cause notice and summary of grounds in form DRC-01.
4. Adequacy of opportunities provided to the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice.

Detailed Analysis:

Maintainability of the Writ Petitions:
The primary issue raised by the respondents was the maintainability of the writ petitions, arguing that the petitioner had an efficacious and alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Rajasthan Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The court emphasized that recent judicial pronouncements by the Supreme Court, including the cases of *Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Others Versus Commercial Steel Limited* and *State of Maharashtra and Others Versus Greatship (India) Limited*, have settled the legal position that writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not maintainable against assessment orders when an alternative statutory remedy is available, except in exceptional circumstances such as breach of fundamental rights, violation of principles of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or a challenge to the vires of the statute.

Alleged Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner contended that the impugned order suffered from a violation of principles of natural justice, arguing that adequate opportunity to file a reply to the show cause notices was not provided, and that the impugned orders were passed without considering the petitioner's reply. However, the court found that the petitioner was granted multiple opportunities to respond to the show cause notices and summons, but failed to provide the necessary information or file a reply. The court noted that the petitioner requested adjournments on several occasions and did not avail the opportunity to submit a reply, thus no violation of principles of natural justice was established.

Compliance with Statutory Provisions:
The petitioner argued that the mandatory requirement of issuing a summary of grounds in form DRC-01, as per Rule 142 of the Rajasthan Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017, was not complied with. The court examined the show cause notices and found that they contained detailed grounds and provisions of law under which the tax was proposed, thus ensuring substantial compliance with the statutory requirements. The court held that the absence of form DRC-01 was a technical issue and did not render the action illegal, as the petitioner had full notice and knowledge of the material particulars.

Adequacy of Opportunities Provided:
The petitioner claimed that the statutory provision under Section 75(5) of the Act, which entitles a person to three opportunities, was not adhered to. The court found that the petitioner was indeed granted three adjournments but failed to submit any reply. The court emphasized that the petitioner's failure to file a reply despite multiple opportunities negated the argument of inadequate opportunities being provided.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the writ petitions were not maintainable due to the availability of an efficacious alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act. The court dismissed the writ petitions, directing the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of appeal, and ensured that the period during which the petitions were pending would not be counted for the purposes of limitation in filing the appeal.

---