TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1221
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the State Taxes Officer, Circle-1 Kashmir ["STO"]. 2. Briefly stated, the facts pleaded in the present petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned notices and order in the face of availability of an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ["CGST Act"], are that in the year 2024, the Assistant Commissioner in the office of the Commissioner, GST (Audit), Commissionerate Jammu, issued a notice dated 16.01.2024 for conducting GST audit for the financial years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2022-23. Pursuant thereto, the Assistant Commissioner conducted the audit for the aforesaid financial years, which culminated in issuance of an Audit Report under Section 65(6) of the CGST Act. The petitioner pleads that all the discrepancies pointed out in the Audit Report with regard to short payment of tax were duly met and the requisite tax liability was discharged. However, in the year 2026, the STO issued the impugned show cause notice dated 06.02.2026 purportedly under Section 73 of the Jammu and Kashmir Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("J&K GST Act") and the Rules framed thereund....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing his submissions, Mr. Azhar ul Amin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that in the instant case, the impugned demand order passed under Section 73 of the J&K GST Act has been issued in sheer violation of the rule of audi alteram partem. He submitted that the show cause notice dated 06.02.2026 could not be responded to by the petitioner as she was out of the Union Territory during the relevant period. He further submitted that the petitioner could not respond to the reminder dated 11.03.2026 for the reason that the date fixed for personal hearing, i.e., 21.03.2026, happened to be a public holiday on account of Eid-ul-Fitr. His further grievance was that the petitioner's request for adjournment made vide communication dated 07.03.2026 was not considered by the respondent-authority, thereby resulting in denial of adequate opportunity of hearing and of defending his case. He further argued that once audit proceedings had already been conducted by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 65 of the CGST Act, the proper officer, i.e., the STO, was not competent to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 73 of the J&K GST Act/CGST Act. According to him, the procee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person. 27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where: (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged. 27.4. An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law. 27.5. When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion. (Emphasis supplied) 27.6. In cases where there are disput....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nted the petitioner from at least submitting his reply by 21.03.2026. Viewed thus, the petitioner had sufficient time to submit his reply to the show cause notice from 06.02.2026 till 21.03.2026. She chose not to submit any reply and, therefore, cannot be said to have been denied the opportunity of hearing. The ground of violation of principles of natural justice carved out by the petitioner is, therefore, without any substance or lawful basis and hence cannot be accepted. 13. So far as the plea of lack of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner is concerned, the same is equally misconceived and not supported by law. Chapter XIII of the CGST Act deals with audit. Section 65, which provides for audit by tax authorities, reads thus: "65. Audit by tax authorities: (1) The Commissioner or any officer authorised by him, by way of a general or a specific order, may undertake audit of any registered person for such period, at such frequency and in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) The officers referred to in sub-section (1) may conduct audit at the place of business of the registered person or in their office. (3) The registered person shall be inf....