The existence of alternate remedies under statutory provisions limits the maintainability of writ petitions in tax matters.

JUDGMENT :

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the order dated 3rd February, 2025 wherein a demand of Rs. 6,942,504/- has been raised, as also the order dated 9th February, 2025, wherein a demand of Rs. 1,21,49,568/- (hereinafter, ‘the impugned orders’) has been raised against the Petitioner.

3. On behalf of the Petitioner, two submissions have been made by the ld. Counsel. Firstly, the reply dated 30^th August, 2024, which has been filed by the Petitioner to the two Show Cause Notices dated 5th August, 2024 which led to the passing of the impugned orders has not been considered by the Departments.

4. Secondly, it is submitted that the personal hearing was also attended by the Petitioner, but the same does not find a mention in the impugned orders. In addition, the plea of limitation has also been raised by the Petitioner.

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

6. Mr. Harpreet Singh, ld. Sr. Standing Counsel submits that the impugned orders were issued by the GST Department within the prescribed limitation period, however, due to a technical glitch, they may have been uploaded on the GST Portal on a later date.

7. Be that as it may,insofar as the reply dated 30^th August, 2024,which has been filed by the Petitioner to the two Show Cause Notices 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 not squarely cover all the four corners of this issue as each and every case has different facts and circumstances. In other words, I note that the decision is to be made on case to case basis and the reliance can be placed only when the case facts tally