JUDGMENT :

Vijay Bishnoi, J.

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 16.2.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Circle Jaisalmer, Jodhpur-I Ward-I, whereby a demand of Rs.15,10,570 was assessed while exercising powers under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act of 2017’) and the petitioner was directed to pay the same by 17.5.2022 with a warning that in case the aforesaid amount is not paid, proceedings shall be initiated against him to recover the outstanding dues.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a proprietor-firm in the name and style of Desert Gateway Resorts, which is engaged in hospitality sector and having its registration under the Act of 2017. On 29.12.2021, the respondents have issued an intimation letter informing the petitioner of the tax ascertained as being payable under Section 73(5) of the Act of 2017 for the tax period between July 2017 to March 2018. Admittedly, the petitioner has not responded the said intimation letter, then a show cause notice was issued by the respondents to the petitioner on 24.1.2022 under Section 73 of the Act of 2017 and he was asked to furnish a reply along with the supporting documents by 10.2.2022. Again the petitioner has not responded to the said show cause notice, then the order impugned dated 16.2.2022 is passed which is challenged by the petitioner by way of filing instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. Assailing the order impugned dated 16.2.2022, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order is patently illegal and against the principles of natural justice and equity. It is further argued that the respondents have failed to properly determine and specify the reasons towards creating demand against the petitioner and despite mentioning in the impugned order itself that they have not provided reasons in the attached annexure. It is further submitted that in fact no such annexure has been supplied. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of the respondents is patently illegal and without jurisdiction.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that as per Section 73 of the Act of 2017, the respondents are required to provide reasons while passing the impugned order whereas from a bare perusal of the same, it is clear that no such reasons have been provided in the impugned order, which results in violation of the principles of natural justice and right of fair hearing and therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.

5. In support of the above, learned counsel Mr. Kothari has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors. Vs. M/s. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (Civil Appeal No.2413/2020 arising out of SLP(C) No.12892/2019 and decision of Madras High Court rendered in W.P.No.28415 of 2022 decided on 16.11.2022.

6. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents have filed reply to the writ petition, wherein certain preliminary objections have been raised.

7. Mr. Hemant Dutt, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable because the petitioner is having an alternate and efficacious remedy of filing appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Act of 2017.

8. In reply to the writ petition, the respondents have contended that the petitioner has concealed the fact that in the financial year 2017-18, he has the credit of amount of Rs.60,35,268 in his bank account, but he has filed the GST return while showing the total turnover of Rs.3,60,400 only and from the above fact, it is clear that the petitioner has concealed the credit of Rs.56,74,868 . It is further stated in the reply that the summon dated 8.12.2021 issued to the petitioner under Section 70, 174 of the Act of 2017 was duly served