2025 (9) TMI 1688

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 35/ADC/GST/UJN/2024-25 dated 30.01.2025 passed by respondent No.3 whereby the demand of GST of Rs. 22,56,93,992/- was confirmed for the financial year 2017-18 apart from interest and penalty. 2. So far as the maintainability of the present petition is concerned, the petitioner in paragraph 3 of the petition memo has declared that against the aforesaid order, an appeal lies under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CGST Act, 2017'). However, the present case involves double taxation, res judicata and jurisdiction to pass the impugned order beyond the applicable period of limitation and contrary to the express mandate of Section 75(7) of the CGST Act. Hence, the writ petitio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng for the respondents, submits that all these grounds are liable to be considered by the appellate authority. The petitioner cannot be permitted to by-pass the same by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that both the show-cause notices cover different issues. The show-cause notice dated 27.09.2023 has compared the tax payable in form GSTR-1 / GSTR-9 and the tax payable under GSTR-3B, whereas the show-cause notice dated 27.12.2023 is in relation to the credit-debit notes reported in GSTR-9 returns but not in the GSTR-1 returns of the FY 2017-18.Such rectification of the error or omission is permissible proviso to sub-Section 3 of Section 37 of the CGST Act, 2017. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bove, are concerned, the question is not about the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, but the question is about the entertainability of the writ petition against the order of assessment by-passing the statutory remedy of appeal. There are serious disputes on facts as to whether the assessment order was passed on 20.03.2020 or 14.07.2020 (as alleged by the assessee). No valid reasons have been shown by the assessee to by-pass the statutory remedy of appeal. This Court has consistently taken the view that when there is an alternate remedy available, judicial prudence demands that the court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under constitutional provisions. 16. In view of the above and i....