2025 (2) TMI 508 - HC - GST

Order under Section 74 held appealable under Section 107A; writ dismissed for lack of exceptional circumstances, 30-day appeal allowed

HC held that an order under Section 74 of the GST Act is appealable under Section 107A, providing the petitioner an adequate statutory remedy. Because no ... Violation of principles of natural justice - adjudication order was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing - denial of petitioner's request for cross-examination of witnesses - HELD THAT:- An order passed under Section 74 of the GST Act is appealable under Section 107A of the said Act. The above Section categorically states that there is a statutory mechanism for redressal enabling the aggrieved party to challenge the reassessment order before an appropriate appellate authority. This Court underlines that this statutory provision ensures that the petitioner has a clear and adequate remedy available for his grievance. This Court further holds that when a specific remedy is available, it is a well settled principle of law that the High Court’s writ jurisdiction cannot be ordinarily invoked unless under exceptional circumstances. In the present case, as the petitioner could not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances and has adequate relief by way of preferring an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act and there arises no need for judicial intervention through a writ petition at this stage - As the writ petition was filed by the petitioner on 29.01.2025 the appellate authority should allow the writ petitioner to file his appeal within 30 days from date and in accordance with law. Conclusion - As the petitioner failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, the Court disposed of the writ petition, clarifying that the dismissal did not prejudice the petitioner's right to avail the appellate remedy within 30 days from the date of the order. Petition disposed off. The issues presented and considered in the judgment are as follows:1. Whether the adjudication order was passed without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearingRs. 2. Whether the adjudication order was passed without granting the petitioner an opportunity to file written notes of replyRs. 3. Whether the petitioner's request for cross-examination of witnesses was deniedRs. 4. Whether the adjudication order for the financial year 2017-18 should be quashedRs.Issue-wise detailed analysis:The petitioner's counsel argued that the adjudication order was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, without granting the opportunity to file written notes of reply, and without allowing cross-examination of witnesses. The respondent authorities relied on the adjudication order, which stated that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under the WBGST Act, 2017. The petitioner requested an extension of the hearing date, highlighting the need for cross-verification to defend themselves effectively.The respondent authorities contended that the request for cross-examination was not applicable as statements of relevant witnesses had already been recorded in the presence of the authorized representative of the petitioner. They also conducted joint hearings with certain individuals and produced documentary evidence to support their statements. The verification at the place of business of M/s Overseas Transport Co. revealed details that indirectly connected to the petitioner's modus operandi.Significant holdings:The Court held that the petitioner had a statutory remedy available under Section 107A of the GST Act to challenge the reassessment order before an appellate authority. It emphasized that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked unless under exceptional circumstances when a specific remedy is available. As the petitioner failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, the Court disposed of the writ petition, clarifying that the dismissal did not prejudice the petitioner's right to avail the appellate remedy within 30 days from the date of the order.In conclusion, the Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the availability of statutory remedies for the petitioner to challenge the adjudication order. The judgment highlighted the importance of following the statutory mechanism for redressal and refrained from intervening through a writ petition in the absence of exceptional circumstances.This summary provides a detailed analysis of the issues presented, the Court's reasoning, key evidence, application of the law to facts, treatment of competing arguments, and the final determinations made by the Court.