2025 (10) TMI 788 - HC - GST

Petition under Article 226 dismissed challenging recovery notice after Section 130 CGST adjudication and unsuccessful appeal

HC dismissed the writ petition under Article 226 seeking to set aside a recovery notice issued pursuant to an adjudication order, holding the petition ... Withdrawal of petition - Seeking to set aside notice seeking recovery of government dues arising out of adjudication order - setting aside subsequent notice seeking recovery - HELD THAT:- This writ petition is clearly devoid of any merit and does not call for interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The ground as raised in respect to proceedings under Section 130 of the CGST Act not being valid as goods have already been seized by the Customs Department, has been dealt with specifically by the adjudicating authority and appeal filed by petitioner was dismissed way back on 07.12.2023. Admittedly no appeal was filed by petitioner to challenge this order till date, though curiously a criminal miscellaneous application, details of which are not forthcoming, was filed and withdrawn. Petitioner at this stage cannot be permitted to raise the ground as above and that too in the absence of any provision of law pointed out before us which prohibits such action. This writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the petitioner can challenge show-cause/adjudication and recovery notices issued under the CGST regime on the ground that the Customs Department had taken custody of the goods and proceedings, thereby rendering action under Section 130 of the CGST Act invalid (allegation of double proceedings/double jeopardy). 2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 when the adjudication order has been the subject of an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act which was dismissed and where no challenge to that appellate order has been pursued. 3. Discretionary issue: Whether the Court should permit withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to refile so as to include and challenge the appellate order dated 07.12.2023 that was not originally on record. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Validity of GST adjudication/recovery in light of Customs having custody and parallel proceedings (double proceedings/double jeopardy) Legal framework: Adjudication and recovery proceedings under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, including seizure/confiscation and recovery provisions (reference: Section 130 procedure and Form GST MOV processes), and concurrent action potential by Customs under the Customs Act. Precedent Treatment: The Court's reasoning does not invoke or distinguish any prior authorities; the adjudicating authority had considered and decided the specific contention that Customs had custody and that CGST proceedings were impermissible. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court notes that the adjudicating authority in the MOV-11 order expressly dealt with the contention that the Customs Department had taken the case property and that consequent GST proceedings were not maintainable. The petitioner challenged that adjudication by way of statutory appeal under Section 107 which was dismissed. Given the adjudicating authority's consideration of the point and the appellate dismissal, the petitioner's attempt to relitigate the same plea in a writ under Article 226 is not permissible in the absence of any statutory provision disallowing CGST action where Customs has custody, and in absence of any successful challenge to the appellate decision. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A petitioner who has had the specific contention considered by the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority (appeal dismissed) cannot relitigate the same ground in a writ petition under Article 226 without first challenging the appellate order; the Court will not overturn tax recovery notices on that ground where the statutory appellate remedy has been availed and dismissed. Obiter - Observations that no provision of law was pointed out before the Court explicitly prohibiting simultaneous proceedings by Customs and CGST. Conclusions: The challenge to MOV-11, GST-MOV-09 and subsequent recovery notices on the ground of double proceedings/double jeopardy is not sustain-able before the High Court in writ jurisdiction when the point was decided by the adjudicating authority and the appellate order dismissing the appeal has not been set aside. Issue 2 - Maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 after dismissal of statutory appeal under Section 107 Legal framework: Constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and the principle that extraordinary constitutional relief is discretionary and generally not to be used to bypass efficacious statutory remedies; statutory appeal mechanism under the CGST Act (Section 107). Precedent Treatment: No express judicial precedent is cited or relied upon in the judgment; the Court applies established principles of restraint in exercise of writ jurisdiction where statutory remedies exist and are effective. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the petitioner had pursued the statutory appeal which was dismissed on 07.12.2023, and that no subsequent challenge was mounted to that appellate order. The petitioner's failure to challenge the appellate dismissal and attempt to re-raise identical grounds before the High Court in writ jurisdiction militates against relief. The Court emphasized the lack of any legal provision shown to the Court prohibiting concurrent action by Customs and CGST, and treated the statutory appeal process and its result as decisive in this context. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where a statutory appeal against adjudication under the CGST Act has been filed and dismissed, and no challenge to that appellate order is on record, the High Court will ordinarily decline to entertain a writ under Article 226 raising the same grounds; absence of a shown legal prohibition against concurrent action by Customs/CGST reinforces refusal. Obiter - Remarks on the petitioner's incomplete record-keeping and unexplained withdrawal of a criminal miscellaneous application. Conclusions: The writ petition is not maintainable and is dismissed as devoid of merit because the statutory appellate remedy was availed and dismissed and remains unchallenged, making the constitutional forum inappropriate for re-agitating identical issues. Issue 3 - Whether leave to withdraw and refile with appended appellate order should be granted Legal framework: Judicial discretion to allow withdrawal with liberty to refile, balanced against finality, procedural fairness, and prejudice to respondents. Precedent Treatment: No reliance on authority; the Court exercised discretion based on case-specific considerations. Interpretation and reasoning: On being apprised that the appellate order dismissing the appeal was not placed on record, learned counsel sought leave to withdraw and refile with that order appended and to challenge it. The Court declined this request because the writ petition was otherwise meritless in substance: the point raised was already adjudicated and dismissed in appeal, and no legal provision was shown proscribing the impugned actions. Allowing withdrawal and refiling to include the appellate order would be an inappropriate procedural route to relitigate settled issues and would not alter the absence of substance in the petitioner's claim. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Court will refuse an application to withdraw and refile where the underlying petition is substantively devoid of merit and seeks to relitigate matters already determined by statutory appellate process; refusal is a valid exercise of discretion. Obiter - The Court noted the curious fact of a withdrawn criminal miscellaneous application without details but did not treat that as decisive. Conclusions: The Court declined to permit withdrawal with liberty to refile; dismissal of the writ petition was ordered instead. Overall Conclusion The writ petition challenging the adjudication order, show-cause notice and recovery notices on the ground of parallel Customs proceedings and alleged double jeopardy is dismissed. The Court found that the adjudicating authority considered the contention and that the petitioner's statutory appeal against the adjudication was dismissed; no successful challenge to that appellate order is on record, and no legal provision precluding concurrent Customs and CGST action was shown. The Court exercised its discretion to refuse leave to withdraw and refile, concluding the petition to be devoid of merit.