The main legal point established in the judgment is that writ petitions challenging assessment orders may not be maintainable if an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available, unless there is a breach of fundamental rights, violation of principles of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or a challenge to the vires of the statute or delegated legislation.

ORDER :

Heard.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents raised an objection with regard to maintainability of these writ petitions, seeking to challenge an order of assessment under Section 50 & 74 of the Rajasthan Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) on the ground that these writ petitions have been filed against the order of assessment though the petitioner has an efficacious and alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that though there exist an alternative remedy of statutory appeal, these petitions have been filed by the petitioner against the order of assessment in the matter of levy of goods and services tax for assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-2020 along with interest and penalty as the impugned order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice, in flagrant violation of statutory provisions with regard to issuance of show cause notice. He would submit that though the show cause notices were issued to the petitioner, the petitioner sought adequate opportunity to file reply to show cause notices, no specific date of hearing was intimated to the petitioner and finally impugned order in these three writ petitions was passed on 11.11.2022 in respect of three different assessment years. He would next contend that in any case the petitioner had submitted his reply on 11.11.2022 itself, but the impugned orders assailed in these petitions do not show that reply was ever considered and on the other hand it has been incorrectly stated that petitioner did not participate in the inquiry despite opportunity afforded, nor produced any record and ever filed any reply. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that now in all the cases the respondents have acted in flagrant violation of provisions contained under Section 74 of the Act inasmuch as the mandatory requirement of giving summary of grounds in form DRC-01 was not supplied along with show cause notice and, therefore, there is apparent flagrant violation of Rule 142 of Rajasthan Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017. He would further submit that various documents collected by the respondents, which includes survey report and statements seven in number, which formed the basis for impugned order of assessment were never submitted to the petitioner. He would further submit that as provided under Section 75(5) of the Act, he was entitled to three opportunities but those opportunities were never granted to him and all of a sudden, without any reply on record, the impugned order was passed.

4. He would further submit that in the show cause notice it was not clearly stated as to which clause of Section 15 of the Act was applicable to create statutory liability for payment of tax, therefore, the show cause notice and the impugned order both are vague, perverse and unsustainable in law. He has also raised an issue that authority had prejudged the issue while issuing show cause notice and the impugned order is nothing but the repetition of the contents of show cause notice.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents referring to his reply submitted that in the present case, the respondents not only acted strictly in accordance with the provisions of law but more than one opportunity was afforded to the petitioner at various stages of the proceedings commencing from issuance of summons under Section 70 of the Act followed by issuance of show cause notice under Section 74 of the Act on 06.07.2022. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that it is not a case where a bare formality of issuing show cause notice was there and without affording any opportunity of hearing order was passed. Right from the beginning when summons under Section 70 of the Act were issued to the petitioner way-back on 06.09.2019, relevant details of Diesel provided by Cement Companies, GR details and agreements were required to be submitted and t