IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the necessity of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking writ relief under Article 226.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner in the present writ petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has assailed an Order-in-Original dated 11.09.2024 passed under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax [CGST] Act, 2017/Assam Goods and Services [AGST] Act, 2017 for the period : April, 2022 – March, 2023 and a Summary of the Order dated 11.09.2024 in Form GST DRC-07 under Rule 142[5] of the corresponding Rules by the respondent no. 4. A direction has also been sought for not to give effect to the impugned Order-in-Original dated 11.09.2024 and the Summary of the Order dated 11.09.2024.

2. The petitioner no. 2 carries out her business in coal under the name and style of petitioner no. 1 with a Certificate of GST Registration no. 18DQKPB5879R1R. The petitioner has averred that the petitioner is entitled to Input Tax Credit [ITC] in respect of purchase of coal under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax [CGST] Act, 2017/Assam Goods and Services [AGST] Act, 2017. The petitioner has contended that all the refunds were duly sanctioned and disbursed after causing full enquiry and the respondent no. 4 is the jurisdictional officer in so far as causing enquiry in respect of the assessment of the petitioner is concerned and the petitioner is entitled to get refund of ITC on zero-rated supplies made by it.

3. The petitioner has further stated that a Demand –cum- Show Cause Notice under

Section 74 of the AGST Act, 2017 stood issued on 08.04.2024 followed by Form GST DRC-01 issued under Rule 100[2] and Rule 142[1][a] of the corresponding rules on 09.04.2024. By the Demand –cum- Show Cause Notice, an amount of tax, interest and penalty amounting to Rs. 54,00,424/- had been demanded for the period from April, 2022 to March, 2023 with the allegation that the petitioner had claimed two erroneous refunds. In the Demand –cum- Show Cause Notice, it was mentioned that on 02.09.2022, the petitioner claimed a refund of Rs. 54,00,424/- for the tax period from March, 2022 to August, 2022 by stating the reason of refund as ‘Refund of ITC on export of goods and services without payment of tax’. Consequently, a refund amount was sanctioned on 07.09.2022 for Rs. 54,00,424/- [Rs. 16,13,480 under IGST + Rs. 2,93,472/- under CGST + Rs. 2,93,472/- under SGST + Rs. 32,00,000/- under Cess]. In the said Show Cause Notice, the Adjudicating Authority had further mentioned that upon verification, it was found that the petitioner/assessee had not received any ITC during the period from March, 2022 to August, 2022 against which the refund was claimed.

4. On receipt of the said Demand –cum- Show Cause Notice dated 08.04.2024, the petitioner stated to have submitted a Reply on 14.05.2024 in Form GST DRC-06 and in the said Reply, the petitioner requested to re-fix the matter after four weeks to enable the petitioner to go through the notice and to check its own documents and papers as well as the transactions for the periods and do the needful thereafter.

5. By the impugned Order-in-Original dated 11.09.2024 in Form GST DRC-07 issued under Rule 142[5], the Adjudicating Authority passed an order with a demand of Rs. 1,27,45,000/- as tax, interest and penalty for the period from April 2022 to March, 2023 and the petitioner had been directed to make payment by 11.10.2024 failing which proceedings would be initiated against the petitioner to recover the outstanding dues.

6. From the Demand –cum- Show Notice dated 08.04.2024, it can be noticed that the Adjudicating Authority finding the alleged discrepancies/anomalies grave in nature posing a serious threat to the interest of revenue, had, as an immediate measure, freezed the bank account of the petitioner bearing A/c no. 922020008402108 maintained at Axis Bank, Dhubri Branch, on and from 05.04.2024.

7. Heard Ms. N. Hawelia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Finance & Taxation Department for all the respondents.

8. Ms. Hawelia, learned counsel for the