2025 (10) TMI 718 - HC - GST

Petitioner allowed to file appeal under Section 107 CGST Act due to possible natural justice breach; merits not decided

The HC found the petitioner's detailed reply to the SCN may not have been fully considered and, while noting writ jurisdiction is generally inappropriate ... Fraudulent availment of input tax credit (ITC) - Case of Revenue is that all the invoices were goods-less invoices and the firms were itself fake - HELD THAT:- The Court notes that the reply to the SCN filed by the Petitioner seems to be lengthy and detailed in nature and the same has not been fully dealt with in the impugned order. The matter relates to allegations of fraudulent availment of ITC. This Court has, in the past, made clear its opinion in several judgments, that writ jurisdiction ought not to be ordinarily exercised in matters that contain such allegations of availment of fraudulent ITC. In Mukesh Kumar Garg vs. Union of India & Ors. 2025 (5) TMI 922 - DELHI HIGH COURT the Court has held that ordinarily, a writ petition would not be maintainable. The Supreme Court in MUKESH KUMAR GARG VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2025 (8) TMI 469 - SC ORDER] has, thus, merely granted a stay on the recovery of the amount directed to be deposited on the condition that the Appellant deposits 25% of the demand before the GST Department. However, considering the fact that there is a possibility of infraction of the principles of natural justice, as the reply to the SCN filed by the Petitioner may not have been fully considered before passing the impugned order, the Court is inclined to permit the Petitioner to avail of its appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - let the appeal be filed by the Petitioner against the impugned order dated 3rd February 2025, by 30th November, 2025 along with the requisite pre-deposit. Petition disposed off. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily maintainable in challenges to adjudication/orders alleging fraudulent availment of input tax credit (ITC) under the CGST Act. 2. Whether failure to consider or adequately deal with a detailed reply to a show cause notice (SCN) and/or potential breach of principles of natural justice renders the impugned order susceptible to interference in writ jurisdiction. 3. Whether, having regard to the existence of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, the petitioner should be relegated to that remedy and, if so, on what terms (including pre-deposit and mitigation of limitation). ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Maintainability of writ petition in matters involving allegations of fraudulent availment of ITC Legal framework: Article 226 extraordinary writ jurisdiction; CGST Act regime governing availment of Input Tax Credit (Section 16) and appellate remedy under Section 107. Principles limiting exercise of writ jurisdiction where alternative statutory remedies exist. Precedent Treatment: The Court relied on and followed the ratio in The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax v. Commercial Steel Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 5121/2021) which holds that existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar but writs are to be entertained only in exceptional circumstances (breach of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or challenge to vires). The Court also treated prior decisions of this Court and other High Courts reiterating reluctance to exercise writ jurisdiction in complex tax-fraud matrices. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that allegations of fraudulent ITC involve complex factual matrices (interconnected non-existent firms, goods-less invoices, chain transactions) which require factual adjudication and cannot ordinarily be resolved in writ jurisdiction. The Court emphasized the legislative design wherein the CGST Act provides an appeal mechanism (Section 107) to test factual and legal findings. The Court noted the potential for multiplicity of proceedings and contradictory outcomes if writ relief were routinely granted in such matters. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be exercised to adjudicate complex factual disputes concerning fraudulent availment of ITC where an efficacious statutory appeal exists; such petitions are to be entertained only in the exceptional categories enumerated by precedent. Obiter - General policy observations on misuse of Section 16 by unscrupulous persons and the potential dent to the GST regime if misuse continued. Conclusions: The Court concluded that, as a default position, writ relief is not appropriate to decide merits of allegations of fraudulent ITC where appeal under Section 107 is available; petitioners should be relegated to the appellate remedy except in exceptional circumstances. Issue 2: Effect of alleged non-consideration of the petitioner's detailed reply to the SCN - natural justice and procedural fairness Legal framework: Principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem), requirements for adjudicatory orders to reflect consideration of material submissions, and statutory procedural precepts under CGST/adjacent rules regarding show cause notices and personal hearings. Precedent Treatment: The Court engaged with earlier authorities (including Commercial Steel) where lack of breach of natural justice justified relegation to appellate remedy. It distinguished circumstances where natural justice violations warranted writ interference. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court scrutinized the impugned order's text and found that while personal hearing notices were issued and no appearance recorded, the impugned order did not fully deal with the petitioner's detailed reply to the SCN. The impugned order briefly recorded receipt of a reply and annexures (invoices, bank statements) but did not show full consideration of the detailed submissions. Given the serious nature of allegations and the length/detailed nature of the reply, there was a real possibility of infirmity vis-à-vis principles of natural justice. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where there is a plausible inference that a detailed reply to a SCN may not have been fully considered, questions of breach of natural justice can arise sufficient to justify limited judicial intervention to secure appellate remedy with appropriate safeguards. Obiter - Observations on adequacy of recorded reasons in tax adjudication generally. Conclusions: The Court found a potential infraction of natural justice - not as a substantive determination on merits but sufficient to warrant permitting the petitioner to prosecute the statutory appeal. The Court therefore allowed limited relief to ensure the petitioner's contentions are ventilated before the appellate authority. Issue 3: Relegation to appellate remedy under Section 107 - terms, pre-deposit, and effect on limitation Legal framework: Section 107 statutory appellate remedy; Supreme Court guidance permitting relegation to appellate forums rather than exercise of writ jurisdiction; supervisory powers of the High Court to grant leave/relief with conditions where natural justice concerns exist. Precedent Treatment: The Court followed the approach in The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax v. Commercial Steel Ltd. and subsequent decisions of this Court and other High Courts, as well as interpreted post-facto Supreme Court interim orders referenced in related litigation (which granted stay on recovery subject to deposit percentages in a particular matter). Interpretation and reasoning: Balancing the general rule of relegation with the identified natural justice concern, the Court exercised its discretion to grant the petitioner liberty to file the statutory appeal within a specified extended timeframe, subject to pre-deposit and costs payable to the Department. The Court directed that the appellate authority decide the appeal on merits and not dismiss it on limitation grounds, and ordered a reasoned order to be passed by the Appellate Authority. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where potential breach of natural justice exists in tax adjudication but an alternative remedy is available, the Court may permit filing of the statutory appeal within extended time and on terms (pre-deposit, costs) while directing merits adjudication and protection against limitation objections. Obiter - Specific numerical directions (timeline, costs) are case-specific procedural relief rather than general law. Conclusions: The petitioner was directed to file the appeal under Section 107 within a stipulated extended period with the requisite pre-deposit and payment of costs to the Department; if so filed, the appeal shall be heard on merits, not dismissed for limitation, and the Appellate Authority shall pass a reasoned order. This remedy balances the policy of relegating disputes to the statutory route with securing procedural fairness where the adjudicating order may not have adequately considered submissions. Cross-References and Practical Implications 1. The Court's conclusions are informed by and consistent with precedent that limits writ intervention in tax matters involving complex factual matrices and fraud allegations, while preserving jurisdiction where exceptions (including breach of natural justice) are credibly alleged. 2. The relief granted is procedural and protective - it does not adjudicate merits of fraudulent ITC allegations but ensures the appellate forum will consider the petitioner's detailed submissions and render a reasoned decision; the order preserves departmental interests via pre-deposit and costs.