2025 (2) TMI 343 - HC - GST

Writ dismissed; petitioner must pursue Section 107 CGST remedy for GSTR-3B liability after failing to respond to notices

The HC dismissed the writ petition seeking quashing of the impugned order and rectification/waiver of GSTR-3B liability, holding that an alternate ... Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Seeking quashing of impugned order - rectification of the Petitioner's GSTR-3B return - waiver of erroneous liability - HELD THAT:- The Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Chhattisgarh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 have been enacted to regulate recovery of goods and service taxes. Section 107 of the CGST Act provides the provision to file appeal before the appropriate authority. If the Act provides to deposit any amount prior to filing of appeal, on this count, provisions of the CGST Act to file appeal cannot be bypassed. In the matter of THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX AND OTHERS VERSUS M/S COMMERCIAL STEEL LIMITED [2021 (9) TMI 480 - SUPREME COURT], Hon’ble Supreme Court has held 'There was, in fact, no violation of the principles of natural justice since a notice was served on the person in charge of the conveyance. In this backdrop, it was not appropriate for the High Court to entertain a writ petition. The assessment of facts would have to be carried out by the appellate authority. As a matter of fact, the High Court has while doing this exercise proceeded on the basis of surmises. However, since we are inclined to relegate the respondent to the pursuit of the alternate statutory remedy under Section 107, this Court makes no observation on the merits of the case of the respondent.' In instant case, none of the above exceptions has been established. There is no violation of fundamental rights or the principles of natural justice in the instant matter. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 27-12-2023, which is reflected from Annexure P-8, which is the reply filed by the petitioner. Para 6.8 of the impugned order also reveals that, petitioner has not responded to the letter/email issued by the jurisdictional Range officer, he also did not respond to the DRC-01A issued by the department. On due consideration, none of the above exceptions was found established. Conclusion - Since there is alternative statutory remedy available to the petitioner for redressal of its grievance, which has not been availed by it, in the light of the observation made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and others, it is not required to entertain instant writ petition invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, this petition is disposed of at this stage. Petition disposed off. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated April 26, 2024, issued by the Joint Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise Tax, Raipur. The petitioner sought several reliefs, including the quashing of the impugned order, rectification of their GSTR-3B return for October 2018, and waiver of penalties imposed under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act).The petitioner, engaged in the steel trading business, claimed that due to an inadvertent error by their consultant, data related to another company was mistakenly filed in their GSTR-3B return for October 2018. This error led to the wrongful declaration of taxable supplies and incorrect availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 5,02,39,154/-. Upon realizing the mistake, the petitioner informed the relevant authorities and requested rectification, which was denied. Consequently, the GST Department issued a Show Cause Notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act, alleging wrongful ITC availment and proposing recovery with interest and penalties.The respondents argued that the petition was against an order passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, which is appealable under Section 107 before the Appellate Tribunal. They contended that since an efficacious alternative remedy was available, the writ petition was not maintainable. They cited a Supreme Court decision that emphasized the availability of statutory remedies unless exceptional circumstances justified the invocation of writ jurisdiction.The Court examined the relevant legal framework, including Sections 73 and 107 of the CGST Act, and referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in a similar case. The Court noted that the existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition under Article 226, but such petitions are typically entertained only in exceptional circumstances, such as a breach of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or a challenge to the vires of the statute.In this case, the Court found no evidence of any of these exceptions. The petitioner had been issued a show cause notice and had the opportunity to respond, indicating no violation of natural justice. The Court concluded that the petitioner had not established any exceptional circumstances to justify bypassing the statutory appeal process under the CGST Act.Consequently, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition, emphasizing that the petitioner had an available statutory remedy that had not been exhausted. The petition was disposed of, with liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue legal recourse against the impugned order through the appropriate channels.