2026 (3) TMI 1139 - HC - GST

Exhaustion of Statutory Remedies: writ dismissed; pursue statutory appeal under Section 107 for disputed service and natural justice claims.

Challenge to an assessment under the Jharkhand GST scheme cannot bypass the statutory appeal: where a complete appellate remedy exists under Section 107, ... Maintainability of Writ petition - Availability of alternative statutory remedy and bar on writ relief - failure to disclose the availability of that remedy and the misleading statement​​​​​​​ - non-service of show cause notices - service by electronic means - violation of principles of natural justice. Availability of alternative statutory remedy and bar on writ relief - HELD THAT: - The Court found that the petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Jharkhand GST Act against the order under Section 73(9). The petitioner's failure to disclose the availability of that remedy and the misleading statement that no alternate efficacious remedy existed warranted dismissal. The Court applied the principle that when a complete statutory mechanism exists to challenge assessment orders, ordinarily the writ jurisdiction should not be exercised to bypass that scheme. [Paras 4, 14, 15] Petition dismissed on the ground that an alternate statutory remedy exists and the petitioner cannot bypass it; liberty granted to prefer an appeal. The Court recorded conflicting sworn statements: respondents averred service of notices by e-mail and uploading on the GST portal, while the petitioner denied receipt. The Court held that such disputed questions of fact-including whether statutory notices and opportunity of hearing were given-are not ordinarily amenable to summary disposal under Article 226, and a mere belated statement of ignorance does not suffice to extend limitation or to justify bypassing the appellate forum. [Paras 9, 11, 13] Allegations of failure of natural justice and non-service are disputed factual questions unsuitable for resolution in writ jurisdiction; they do not justify entertaining the writ petition. Final Conclusion: The petition is dismissed for being instituted despite an available appellate remedy and for raising disputed factual issues of service and natural justice unsuitable for summary adjudication under Article 226; the petitioner is granted liberty to pursue the remedy of appeal and all contentions are left open to the appellate authority. Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition challenging an assessment/order under Section 73(9) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is maintainable when an appeal remedy exists under Section 107 of the Act; (ii) Whether alleged non-service of show cause notices and violation of principles of natural justice justify bypassing the statutory appellate remedy.Issue (i): Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of an appeal under Section 107 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.Analysis: The impugned assessment order is appealable under Section 107 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner failed to disclose the availability of the statutory appeal in the petition and asserted there was no alternate efficacious remedy. The existence of a statutory mechanism for challenging assessment orders ordinarily requires invocation of that remedy unless exceptional circumstances are shown. Reliance on precedent that discourages bypassing statutory remedies where a complete statutory mechanism exists was invoked.Conclusion: The writ petition is not maintainable as a means to bypass the statutory appeal remedy under Section 107 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Conclusion against the petitioner.Issue (ii): Whether the alleged non-service of notices and breach of natural justice justify exercise of writ jurisdiction to bypass the appellate remedy.Analysis: Service and notice facts are disputed: respondents averred service via GST portal and registered e-mail including notices in Form ASMT-10 under Rule 99(1) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and DRC-01 under Section 73(1) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; petitioner denies receipt and alleges later knowledge. Disputed questions of fact regarding service and delay cannot be resolved in summary writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The petitioner's misleading averment that no alternate remedy existed further weakens the case for bypassing the statutory appeal. The Court left open the determination of all contentions to the appellate authority.Conclusion: Allegations of failure of natural justice and non-service, being disputed factual issues, do not justify bypassing the statutory appeal; conclusion against the petitioner.Final Conclusion: The writ petition is dismissed; the petitioner is relegated to pursue the statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and all factual and legal contentions are to be decided by the appellate authority.Ratio Decidendi: Where a complete statutory appellate mechanism exists, a writ petition will not be entertained to bypass that remedy absent clear, non-disputed exceptional circumstances; disputed factual questions of service and natural justice are to be resolved in the appropriate forum and not in summary writ jurisdiction.