The existence of an alternative remedy under statutory provisions limits the maintainability of writ petitions unless exceptional circumstances exist.

JUDGMENT :

Prathiba M. Singh, J. 

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CM APPL. 49311/2025

2. Allowed subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 12062/2025 & CM APPL. 49312/2025

3. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing the Show Cause Notice dated 5th August, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘SCN’) issued for the Financial Year 2017-18. The Petitioner further challenges the Order-in-Original dated 1st February, 2025 alongwith the Form DRC-07 dated 9th February, 2025 (hereinafter,‘impugned order’). Vide the impugned order a demand to the tune of Rs. 2,18,24,370/- has been raised against the Petitioner.

4. On behalf of the Petitioner, two submissions have been made by the ld. Counsel. Firstly, the reply dated 27^th August, 2024, which has been filed by the Petitioner to the SCN, which led to the passing of the impugned order has not been considered by the Central Goods and Service Tax Department (hereinafter, ‘Department’). Secondly, it is submitted that no opportunity of personal hearing has been afforded to the Petitioner by the Department. In addition, the plea of limitation has also been raised by the Petitioner.

5. Coming to the plea of limitation, it is seen that the impugned order is dated 1^st February, 2025, however, it appears that the Form DRC-07 was uploaded on 9^th February, 2025 on the GST Portal of the Petitioner.

6. Mr. Shashank Sharma, ld. SSC submits that the impugned order was issuedby theDepartment within the prescribed limitation period,however,due to a technical glitch, it may have been uploaded on the GST Portal on a later date.

7. Be that as it may,insofar as the reply dated 27^th August, 2024,which has been filed by the Petitioner to the SCN dated 5th August, 2024 is concerned, the impugned order dated 9th February, 2025 itself records as under:

“4. SUBMISSIONS OF THE NOTICEES AND RECORDS OF PERSONAL HEARING:

Following the principle of natural justice, the noticees were granted personal hearings (PH) on 21.11.2024, 16.12.2024 & 26.12.2024. However, replies from Noticee No. 14, 70 and 86 were received whereas for rest of the noticees neither the noticees nor any of their authorized representatives appeared before the Adjudicating Authority for personal hearing on the said dates. Thus, on the basis of available facts and records, I proceed to examine the instant case. 

5. DISCUSSION & FINDINGS:-

5.1 I have carefully gone through the facts of the case, available case records and the allegations as per the subject SCN. It is seen that the Noticees had not submitted any written submission and also did not appear for personal hearing. Personal Hearings were granted on 21.11.2024, 16.12.2024 & 26.12.2024. However, replies from Noticee No. 14, 70 and 86 were received which have been duly considered. As per reply of Noticee No.70 & 86 the amount mentioned below has been deposited:

For Noticee No. 86, I find that vide their reply dated 03/01/2025 received on 06/01/2025 to the DRC-01 in the matter, the taxpayer submitted various points i.e. that Section 74 was not applicable in case of records of the taxpayer as there was no suppression of facts, fraud, mis-statement of malafide intention to evade the tax by the taxpayer; that the taxpayer submitted various case laws in support of their above mentioned claims. Further, I find that the taxpayer submitted point-wise reply to the observations on merit. However, on going thoroughly through the reply/points submitted; case laws quoted by the noticee. In this regard I find that on going through the case laws/submissions made by the party, the provided case laws do