HC dismisses petition; no substantial legal question under Article 226; directs petitioner to use appellate remedy

The HC dismissed the writ petition, holding that no substantial question of law warranted its interference under Article 226. Allegations of violation of natural justice and GST provisions are to be addressed by the designated appellate authority. The petitioner was directed to pursue the alternative remedy provided by law.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against an order-in-original passed under the CGST Act, 2017, without availing the alternative statutory remedy of appeal.Whether the principles of natural justice were violated in confirming the demand of GST, interest, and penalty under the CGST Act, 2017.Whether the assessing officer had jurisdiction to pass the order-in-original under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The writ petition under Article 226 challenging the order-in-original confirming GST demand and penalty is not maintainable without first availing the alternative statutory remedy of appeal, as the order is appealable under the CGST Act, 2017.The petitioner's allegations of violation of principles of natural justice and errors in the order are matters that can be adjudicated by the appellate authority and do not justify bypassing the statutory appeal mechanism.The assessing officer had jurisdiction to pass the order-in-original under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017; there was no total lack of jurisdiction warranting writ relief.

RATIONALE:

The Court relied on the precedent that a writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable against an order-in-original passed by the assessing officer when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available, unless there is a total lack of jurisdiction.The legal framework applied includes Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 (demand and recovery of tax not paid or short paid), Section 50 (interest), and Section 122(2)(b) (penalty), read with corresponding provisions of the SGST Act, 2017.The Court followed the principle established in the cited apex court decision that the High Court should not entertain writ petitions against such orders without the appellant first exhausting the statutory appeal remedy, and that issues of natural justice and factual errors are to be examined by the appellate authority.No complex question of law was raised warranting direct writ intervention; the petitioner was granted liberty to file the statutory appeal within the prescribed period, with observations that limitation would not be raised if appeal is filed timely.

---