2026 (3) TMI 967 - HC - GST

Writ jurisdiction not to bypass statutory pre-deposit or re-open tax demands where hearing opportunity and appellate remedy exist.

Challenge to show-cause notices and consequent tax demand was rejected because the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity of hearing before the proper ... Maintainability of writ in presence of alternate statutory remedy - Violation of principle of natural justice - denial of fair opportunity of hearing and to avoid the statutory pre-deposit requirement - Validity of show cause notice and final order - discrepancy observed by the Proper Officer regarding the mismatch of TDS credit and turnover reported in GSTR-1/3B. Violation of principle of natural justice - Writ petition - HELD THAT: - The Court found that notices under Section 61 and show-cause notices under Section 73 were issued and made available on the common portal, and the petitioner failed to file any response or request personal hearing within the time given. The opportunity to seek personal hearing existed after filing a reply to the show-cause notice; absence of any reply or appearance disentitles the petitioner from claiming denial of natural justice. The Court therefore concluded that there was no procedural infirmity in the impugned orders warranting exercise of writ jurisdiction. [Paras 7] The contention of denial of fair hearing is rejected and not a ground for entertaining the writ petition. Maintainability of writ in presence of alternate statutory remedy - Arguments on the correctness of the demand and alleged clerical errors are matters to be raised and decided in appeal before the Appellate Authority, not in writ jurisdiction. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that allegations concerning mismatches in GSTR-1/3B, clerical classification of supplies and the correctness of tax liability are substantive disputes which the petitioner must pursue through the statutory appellate mechanism. Since there is an available and efficacious alternative remedy of appeal, the writ petition is not entertainable on merits for these grounds. [Paras 9] Substantive disputes regarding liability and clerical mistakes must be raised in appeal; writ on merits is therefore not maintainable. The Court noted the petitioner approached the High Court after the period for filing an appeal had expired and with the apparent intention to avoid the mandatory pre-deposit. The statutory requirement of depositing the prescribed percentage to prosecute an appeal is a legislative condition; the writ cannot be resorted to as a device to evade that precondition. [Paras 10] The petition cannot be entertained to circumvent the statutory pre-deposit requirement for appeal. Final Conclusion: The writ petition is dismissed: no violation of natural justice was found as the petitioner did not reply to notices or seek personal hearing, the disputed tax liability and clerical issues are to be agitated in appeal, and the statutory pre-deposit condition for appeal cannot be avoided by invoking writ jurisdiction. Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging show cause notices and consequent demand orders under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is maintainable on grounds of denial of fair opportunity of hearing and to avoid the statutory pre-deposit requirement, notwithstanding availability of an alternative appellate remedy.Analysis: The proceedings under challenge arose after notices under Section 61 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and subsequent show cause notices under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; the show cause notices and final orders were uploaded on the common portal in terms of Section 169(1)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner did not respond to the notices under Section 61 nor to the show cause notices issued under Section 73 and did not seek a personal hearing before the Proper Officer within the time provided. Medical incapacity was asserted for non-participation, but no reply was filed with the authority when the show cause notices were pending. The challenges to factual determinations and clerical mismatches in GSTR-1/3B are matters that can be agitated before the Appellate Authority, subject to the statutory pre-deposit and limitation conditions. The petition invoking writ jurisdiction was primarily to avoid the statutory pre-deposit and to re-litigate issues which the statutory appeal mechanism is equipped to decide.Conclusion: Writ petition dismissed on the ground that there was no violation of the principle of natural justice and an alternate remedy by way of appeal is available; the petition is not maintainable to bypass the statutory pre-deposit requirement.Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxpayer fails to avail the opportunity of hearing before the proper officer and an effective statutory appellate remedy exists subject to pre-deposit and limitation conditions, writ jurisdiction is not to be exercised to re-open disputed tax demands or to avoid statutory pre-deposit requirements.