Petition dismissed for failure to exhaust alternate remedy of appeal or rectification under applicable law

The HC dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner must first exhaust the alternate statutory remedy of appeal or rectification, which remains pending. The court found no sufficient grounds to bypass these remedies, including arguments on limitation, bias, or res judicata, as these issues require factual investigation best suited for the Appellate Authority. Reliance was placed on precedent emphasizing the need to exhaust alternate remedies before approaching the HC. The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal after meeting necessary pre-conditions.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether the adjudicating officer's involvement in audit amounts to biased adjudication warranting bypass of alternate remedies.Whether the impugned order was passed in breach of limitation provisions, rendering it without jurisdiction.Whether the petitioner can be subjected to payment of GST amounts twice on the same cause of action, implicating Article 265 of the Constitution of India.Whether the petitioner is entitled to bypass the alternate statutory remedy of appeal and rectification application.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The contention of bias due to adjudicating officer's involvement in audit is not tenable, especially as no objection was raised before the adjudicating authority; such an argument can be examined in appeal where waiver can also be considered.The impugned order was passed within the prescribed period of limitation; the argument of breach of limitation is not made out ex facie and is better suited for adjudication on appeal involving factual investigation.The plea against double taxation or res judicata on account of prior investigation and payment involves factual inquiry and is appropriately raised before the Appellate Authority.The petitioner is not entitled to bypass the alternate statutory remedies of rectification and appeal, as the impugned order is appealable and the rectification application is pending; the reasons cited do not justify departure from the normal practice of exhaustion of alternate remedies.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the principle of exhaustion of alternate statutory remedies, relying on precedents including the decision in Oberoi Constructions vs. Union of India & Ors., which emphasize that jurisdictional and limitation issues are generally to be raised in appeal rather than in writ petitions.The Court noted that objections not raised before the adjudicating authority, such as bias, may be considered waived and are more appropriately examined on appeal where all parties can be heard.The limitation contention requires factual investigation and cannot be determined on the face of the record at this stage.The Court distinguished the present case from prior cases involving extension of limitation under Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017, which were admitted due to specific limitation issues not present here.The Court preserved all merits contentions for consideration by the Appellate Authority, clarifying that observations made are solely for deciding the issue of whether to bypass alternate remedies and do not prejudice future proceedings.

---