TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 631
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng authority, and determine the legality as well as the correctness of the order under challenge. It is for this reason that where the legislature has consciously created a specialised adjudicatory framework coupled with a hierarchy of appellate remedies, constitutional courts have consistently exercised restraint in entertaining a challenge to an original adjudication order under Article 226 of the Constitution. Such self-imposed restraint is founded not upon any lack of jurisdiction, but upon settled principles governing the exercise of judicial discretion. 3. Questions involving appreciation of evidence, admissibility of material, correctness of factual findings and the sufficiency of reasons recorded by the adjudicating authority are, in the ordinary course, matters which the statutory appellate authority is best equipped to examine. Entertaining a writ petition in such circumstances would not only permit a litigant to bypass the legislative scheme but would also dilute the efficacy of the appellate mechanism consciously provided by the statute. 4. At the same time, it is equally well settled that the existence of an alternative statutory remedy does not operate as an abs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed unaccounted transactions between the said entity and the Petitioner. Proceeding on the basis of the said material, the Respondent Department issued the SCN alleging suppression of taxable transactions and proposing recovery of tax, interest and penalty, which culminated in the passing of the Impugned Order. 8. Learned counsel representing the Petitioner submits that although an appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act is available, the present Petition falls within the well-recognised exception of violation of the principles of natural justice. It is contended that the Impugned Order has been passed without due consideration of the detailed reply submitted by the Petitioner and without properly dealing with the specific objections raised during the adjudication proceedings. It is further submitted that effective opportunity of personal hearing was not afforded to the Petitioner, that the hearing notices were not duly served, and that the adjudicating authority proceeded mechanically without considering the material placed on record. 9. Learned counsel further submits that the findings recorded in the Impugned Order rest substantially upon electronic data allegedl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dismissed on the ground of availability of an efficacious alternative remedy. 12. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel representing the parties and has perused the material placed on record. Upon a careful consideration of the rival submissions, this Court is of the opinion that the controversy in the present Petition essentially revolves around whether the grievances projected by the Petitioner disclose such a patent violation of the principles of natural justice or such manifest jurisdictional infirmity as would justify this Court entertaining the present Petition notwithstanding the availability of the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. 13. The first limb of the Petitioner's challenge is founded upon the alleged violation of the principles of natural justice. According to the Petitioner, the hearing notices were not duly served, no effective opportunity of personal hearing was afforded, the detailed reply submitted during the adjudication proceedings was not duly considered and, consequently, the Impugned Order stands vitiated. This Court is unable to accept the aforesaid submission. 14. A perusal of the re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e that the authorised representative of the Petitioner participated in the adjudication proceedings, appeared before the adjudicating authority and submitted a detailed reply on behalf of the Petitioner, the alleged irregularity in the mode or timing of service of the hearing notices, even assuming the same to exist, would not, by itself, establish such prejudice as would render the entire adjudication proceedings void. The Petitioner has neither pleaded nor demonstrated that it was prevented from placing any material before the adjudicating authority on account of the alleged defect in service. 18. This Court is, therefore, unable to hold that the facts of the present case disclose any such patent violation of the principles of natural justice as would justify entertaining the present Petition notwithstanding the efficacious statutory remedy available under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The challenge, insofar as it is founded upon the alleged denial of opportunity, essentially invites this Court to examine the adequacy of the adjudicating process and the sufficiency of the reasons recorded in the Impugned Order. Such an exercise would necessarily require this Court to enter into....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the original record, the documents relied upon by both parties, the investigation material, the forensic examination report, the statements recorded during the enquiry and the findings returned by the adjudicating authority. Such an exercise is not ordinarily undertaken in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution where the statute itself provides a comprehensive appellate mechanism empowered to re-appreciate both facts and law. 23. The submission relating to denial of cross-examination also cannot, in the facts of the present case, persuade this Court to entertain the present Petition. The Petitioner contends that the findings recorded in the Impugned Order are founded upon statements of third parties and that failure to afford an opportunity of cross-examination has resulted in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Respondents, on the other hand, assert that the adjudication is not based solely upon such statements but upon a body of documentary and electronic evidence gathered during investigation. Whether the statements constituted the sole basis of the adjudication, whether they were merely corroborative in nature, whether cross-examination was war....