Taxpayer's Direct Challenge Rejected: Statutory Appeal Required Before Seeking Extraordinary Writ Relief Under GST Act Section 107

The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging a GST tax order, holding that the petitioner must first exhaust the statutory appeal mechanism under Section 107 of the GST Act. The court emphasized that writ jurisdiction under Article 227 is not an alternative to regular appellate remedies, and directed the petitioner to file an appeal within four weeks, considering any delay as bona fide.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court include:

(a) Whether the Petitioner was justified in making payments towards Mineral Royalties as per the instructions and terms laid down by the Geology and Mining Department of the State Government, and whether such payments fall within the scope of service under the GST regime.

(b) Whether the definitions and explanations of "Royalty" as provided in the Government Relations of Mineral Royalties by the Indian Bureau of Mines, Ministry of Mines, Government of India, are legally valid and enforceable.

(c) Whether the Order dated 17th January 2025, passed by the Respondent No. 5 under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, is arbitrary and illegal and liable to be quashed.

(d) Whether the invocation of Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Act, which deals with tax recovery in cases of fraud, is appropriate in the absence of fraudulent intention on the part of the Petitioner.

(e) Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Order-in-Original directly, or whether the Petitioner must first exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a) and (b): Validity of Payment of Mineral Royalties and Definitions of Royalty

The Petitioner contended that the payment towards mineral royalties was made strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions prescribed by the State Government's Geology and Mining Department. Further, the Petitioner challenged the definitions and explanations of "Royalty" as provided by the Indian Bureau of Mines, arguing that these definitions were not legally binding and should be struck down.

The Court, however, did not delve into the substantive merits of these contentions at this stage, as the primary challenge was procedural and jurisdictional. The Court's reasoning focused on the procedural propriety of approaching the High Court directly via a writ petition rather than through the statutory appellate mechanism.

Issue (c) and (d): Legality of the Order dated 17th January 2025 and Invocation of Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Act

The impugned Order was passed under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Act, which pertains to situations where tax has not been paid due to fraud or willful misstatement or suppression of facts. The Petitioner argued that there was no fraudulent intention in non-payment of tax on the royalty amount, and hence Section 74 could not be invoked.

The Court did not address the merits of this argument directly but observed that such factual and legal disputes are to be adjudicated by the appellate authority designated under the GST statute. The Court emphasized that the assessment of facts, including the presence or absence of fraudulent intent, falls within the purview of the appellate process and not the writ jurisdiction.

Issue (e): Maintainability of the Writ Petition under Article 227 vis-`a-vis Statutory Remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act

The Court extensively relied on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in a similar case, which clarified the scope of writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution when alternate statutory remedies exist. The Supreme Court held that the existence of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction but writ petitions should be entertained only in exceptional circumstances such as:

• Breach of fundamental rights;
• Violation of principles of natural justice;
• Excess of jurisdiction; or
• Challenge to the vires of the statute or delegated legislation.

In the present matter, none of these exceptions were established. There was no breach of fundamental rights or violation of natural justice, and the Petitioner had a statutory right of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act. The Court noted that the Petitioner had not availed this remedy and instead sought to bypass it by filing a writ petition.

The Court further observed that the High Court's entertaining of the writ petition was inappropriate and that the assessment of facts should be carried out by the appellate authority. The Court also noted that the High Court's approach was based on surmises rather than concrete findings.

Consequently, the Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable and the Petitioner must resort to the statutory appeal mechanism. The Court granted the Petitioner a period of four weeks to file the appeal and directed that any delay caused by the pendency of the writ petition would be considered bona fide.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court's key legal reasoning and principles established include the following verbatim excerpt from the Supreme Court's precedent relied upon:

"11. The respondent had a statutory remedy under section 107. Instead of availing of the remedy, the respondent instituted a petition under Article 226. The existence of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. But a writ petition can be entertained in exceptional circumstances where there is: (i) a breach of fundamental rights; (ii) a violation of the principles of natural justice; (iii) an excess of jurisdiction; or (iv) a challenge to the vires of the statute or delegated legislation.

12. In the present case, none of the above exceptions was established. 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."

Final determinations on each issue are as follows:

• The Petitioner's challenge to the payment of Mineral Royalties and the definitions of Royalty was not entertained on merits at this stage.
• The Order dated 17th January 2025 passed under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Act was not quashed or stayed by the Court.
• The invocation of Section 74 for recovery of tax was not adjudicated upon substantively, as the Court held that such issues fall within the appellate jurisdiction.
• The writ petition under Article 227 was held not maintainable in the absence of exceptional circumstances and in presence of an alternate statutory remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act.
• The Petitioner was directed to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within four weeks, with the time spent before the High Court being considered bona fide for any delay.

---