Natural justice and alternative remedy: writ interference declined where notice, hearing opportunity and documentary proof were not adequately used.

Notice and hearing opportunity were found adequate because the assessee had received the intimation, show cause notice and reminder for personal hearing, and did not avail the opportunity; principles of natural justice were therefore not violated. The dispute also depended substantially on proof of purchase and receipt of goods through invoices, e-way bills, payment proof, lorry receipts and delivery documents, which were not produced. In view of that evidentiary gap and the availability of a statutory appellate remedy, writ interference was declined and the merits were left to be pursued in appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned assessment orders were vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice; (ii) Whether interference in writ jurisdiction was warranted notwithstanding the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned assessment orders were vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice.

Analysis: The petitioner had received both the intimation and the show cause notice. The record also showed that a personal hearing was offered, including by the reminder notice, and nothing prevented attendance at that hearing followed by a reply. Although the sequencing was not ideal, the petitioner did not avail the opportunity available.

Conclusion: The principles of natural justice were not violated.

Issue (ii): Whether interference in writ jurisdiction was warranted notwithstanding the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Analysis: The dispute turned substantially on the petitioner's failure to produce documents to establish purchase and receipt of goods, which the registered person was required to maintain and produce. The Court noted that invoices, e-way bills, payment proof, lorry receipts and delivery documents were ordinarily necessary for that purpose. In those circumstances, and in view of the statutory appellate remedy, the Court declined to adjudicate the merits in writ proceedings.

Conclusion: Interference under writ jurisdiction was declined because the petitioner had an alternative remedy.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were not entertained on merits, and the petitioner was left to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: When an assessee has been afforded notice and a hearing opportunity, and the controversy substantially concerns evidentiary proof for tax credit entitlement, writ interference may be declined in favour of the statutory appellate remedy.

---