Facts of the Case

The petitioner challenged a Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice issued under Section 74 of the OGST/CGST Act by filing a writ petition before the Orissa High Court. During the hearing, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to avail the statutory appellate remedy available under the GST law against the impugned demand notice.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the writ petition challenging a demand-cum-show cause notice under Section 74 of the GST Act should be entertained when an alternative statutory remedy is available.
  2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to withdraw the writ petition and pursue the appellate remedy provided under the GST law.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner requested permission to withdraw the writ petition.
  • Liberty was sought to file a statutory appeal against the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice issued under Section 74 of the OGST/CGST Act in accordance with law.

Respondent's Arguments

The respondents appeared through their respective counsel. No detailed arguments on merits were recorded in the order, as the matter was confined to the petitioner's request for withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to avail the statutory appellate remedy.

Court Order / Findings

The Orissa High Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition.

The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal against the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice issued under Section 74 of the OGST/CGST Act in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn with the liberty sought by the petitioner.

 

Important Clarification

  • A person aggrieved by proceedings initiated under Section 74 of the CGST/OGST Act should ordinarily avail the statutory appellate remedy available under the GST law.
  • The High Court, in the present case, did not examine the merits of the demand notice.
  • The order merely records the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition and grants liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.

Related Case Laws

  • Assistant Commissioner of State Tax v. Commercial Steel Limited – Supreme Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be exercised where an effective statutory remedy exists under the GST law.
  • State of H.P. & Others v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. – Supreme Court discussed the principle governing exercise of writ jurisdiction when alternate remedies are available.
  • Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. – Supreme Court emphasized that High Courts should normally refrain from entertaining writ petitions where statutory remedies exist.
  • Union of India v. Coastal Container Transporters Association – Supreme Court reaffirmed that parties should ordinarily exhaust statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction.

Sections Involved

  • Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act)
  • Section 74 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (OGST Act)

Link to Download the Order-https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1784092784_946compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.