2026 (2) TMI 1209 - HC - GST

Writ jurisdiction limited where disputed facts and alternative statutory appeal exist; petition against rectification orders dismissed.

Where a petition challenges rectification orders under the remedy for errors apparent on the record, the court emphasised that writ jurisdiction is ... Maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 in presence of alternative remedy of appeal - rectification u/s 161 - assessment under GST and consequence of non-filing of objections to show-cause notice - exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction and disputed questions of fact - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, absolutely nothing is stated as to the illegality committed by the respondent authorities except making bald allegations that the respondents have not followed the procedure contemplated under law, nothing is placed on record to substantiate the said contention. Further, on perusal of the record, it is succinctly clear that before passing orders on the rectification applications, the petitioner was issued notice dt.18.01.2025 asking him to attend for personal hearing to be conducted on 20.01.2025. Accordingly, the petitioner attended for personal hearing on the said date and the objections raised by him were also considered and passed orders on the rectification applications dt.06.07.2023 and 08.07.2023, which are being impugned in the present writ petition. As already noted, the petitioner has not challenged the assessment order dt.17.04.2023. Further, as per Section 161 of GST Act, the authorities are empowered to rectify any error which is on the face of record in such decision or order or notice or certificate or any other document. In the case on hand, as observed, the applications filed by the petitioner were considered and orders were passed. If at all, the petitioner is agreed the said orders, he ought to have challenged the same by filing appeal as provided under the Act. Therefore, the present writ petition cannot be entertained in view of involvement of disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary original jurisdiction vested in it by virtue of Article 226 of the Constitution of India and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedies available under law. Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 challenging rectification orders issued under Section 161 can be entertained where disputed questions of fact arise, the assessment order was not challenged, rectification applications were considered after personal hearing, and an alternative remedy of appeal is available.Analysis: Relevant legal framework includes the remedial scope of Section 161 (rectification of errors apparent on the face of the record), the statutory scheme for assessment and appeal under the Central Goods and Services Tax regime, and the limits on exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction where disputed factual issues and alternative statutory remedies exist. The authorities issued pre-intimation and show cause notices, passed an assessment under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and later considered rectification applications filed under Section 161 after providing notice for and conducting a personal hearing. The petitioner did not file objections to the notices nor challenge the original assessment order by the statutory appellate process. The matter before the Court involves contested factual determinations relating to alleged suppression of outward supplies and tax liability, which are suitable for adjudication through the prescribed statutory remedy of appeal rather than by exercise of writ jurisdiction.Conclusion: The writ petition is not maintainable and is dismissed; the petitioner is left free to pursue the statutory remedies available under law.