TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 786
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Ram Ochani a/w Ms. Kavita Shukla. JUDGMENT (PER JITENDRA JAIN J) :- 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the show cause notice dated 2 August 2024 issued by respondent no. 2 to the petitioner to centralise and show cause before respondent no. 3 why CGST, SGST and IGST should not be demanded and recovered under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST), State Goods and Services Tax Act (SGST) and Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act (IGST). The said show cause notice further directs the petitioner to show cause why interest under Section 50 of the CGST Act and the SGST Act should not be demanded and recovered in addition to the penalty under Section 74....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2024 and, therefore, this Court should entertain at the stage of the show cause notice itself since conditions specified in the Circular cannot be complied with. The learned senior counsel also relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. JSW Steel Limited Vs. Directorate General of GST Intelligence & Ors. Writ Petition (C) NO. 13769 of 2024 dated 1st October 2024 in support of his submission. 4. We have heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 5. The show cause notice is issued for the determination of the value of the supply as per Section 15 (3) (b) of the CGST Act, 2017, which provides that the value of the supply shall not include any discount given a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Section 15 (3) (b) of the CGST Act. 7. In our view, the issue of whether there is a suppression of facts or misstatement to invoke an extended period of limitation would require a determination on the factual matter which this Court, in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, certainly cannot enter into. The issue of shifting of onus also involves adjudication on facts. Furthermore, compliance with conditions of Section 15 (3) (b) would also include inviting this Court to enter the arena of facts which we are afraid we cannot examine. In the show cause notice, we could not find any reference to Circular No. 212/6/2024 dated 26 June 2024, based on which the petitioner has submitted that the impugned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the present. Simply alleging that the impugned show cause notices are without jurisdiction is insufficient. The usual adjudicatory process, where such a matter Whirlpool can be effectively adjudicated upon, cannot be scuttled by rushing to the writ court and securing stays on the adjudicatory process. 10. In Special Director and Another Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another (2004) 3 SCC 440, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that unless the High Court is satisfied that the show-cause notice was totally non-est in the eyes of the law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority even to investigate the facts, writ petitions should not be entertained for mere asking and as a matter of routine. The writ petitioner should invariably be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....26, where the petitioner has an alternative remedy that provides an equally efficacious remedy without being unduly onerous. Again, the High Court does not generally enter upon a determination of questions which demand an elaborate examination of evidence to establish the right to enforce which the writ is claimed. The High Court does not, therefore, act as a court of appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal to correct errors of fact and does not, by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226, trench upon an alternative remedy provided by statute for obtaining relief. Where it is open to the aggrieved petitioner to move another tribunal, or even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute,....