GST proceedings upheld as petitioner failed to exhaust statutory remedies and demonstrate exceptional circumstances for judicial intervention

Gauhati HC dismissed a writ petition challenging GST proceedings, ruling that alternative statutory remedies were available and the petitioner failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting judicial intervention. The court held that non-uploading of notices on the electronic portal was waived by the petitioner's failure to object in their reply. Direct service of notices under Section 73 CGST Act was deemed valid statutory compliance. The court rejected arguments regarding different authorities issuing the demand notice and final order, finding the adjudication process proper and the grounds adequately addressed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Non-compliance of statutory prescriptions in the CGST Act, 2017 and CGST Rules, 2017.
2. Issuance of Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice by one authority and passing of Order-in-Original by another.
3. Non-affording of personal hearing to the petitioner.
4. Availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Summary:

Non-compliance of statutory prescriptions:
The petitioner challenged the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 22.09.2023 and Order-in-Original dated 14.12.2023 on grounds of non-compliance with Rule 142 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner argued that summaries of the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice and Order-in-Original were not uploaded on the portal in FORM GST DRC-01 and FORM GST DRC-07 respectively, violating statutory prescriptions. However, the court observed that the petitioner had received physical copies and did not raise this issue in its Reply to the Show Cause Notice, implying waiver of this requirement. The court held that non-uploading did not prejudice the petitioner and was not an exceptional situation warranting writ jurisdiction.

Issuance of Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice by one authority and passing of Order-in-Original by another:
The petitioner contended that the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice was issued by one authority and the Order-in-Original was passed by another, violating principles of natural justice. The court noted that the petitioner was specifically called to show cause before the Assistant Commissioner, Central GST, Silchar Division, and failed to attend scheduled personal hearings. The court concluded that the petitioner had left the case to be decided based on its written Reply and that this did not violate the principle of "one who hears must decide."

Non-affording of personal hearing:
The petitioner claimed no personal hearing was afforded before passing the Order-in-Original. The court found that multiple dates for personal hearings were fixed, but the petitioner failed to attend. The court held that the petitioner had the opportunity but chose not to avail it, thus no violation of natural justice occurred.

Availability of an alternative statutory remedy:
The respondent argued that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal u/s 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The court acknowledged that while the writ petition is maintainable, it should not be entertained due to the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy. The court emphasized that the petitioner could raise all contentions before the statutory appellate authority and that the time spent in the writ petition would be considered regarding limitation.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner did not make out an exceptional case for interference in the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was advised to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal u/s 107 of the CGST Act, 2017.

---