The existence of an alternate statutory remedy under the CGST Act limits the maintainability of a writ petition, and no exceptional circumstances were established to bypass this requirement.

JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J

The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:-

“(A) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, or any other writ quashing the show cause notice dated bearing DIM No. 20240550ZG00000039B 31.05.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Respondent No. 3 whereby the demand of Rs. 4,37,17,830/- along with interest and penalty was created.

(B) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ holding that the petitioner is rightly eligible for the input tax credit availed for the period from 2017-18 to 2021-22

(C) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue of writ in the nature of certiorari holding that the amendment to explanation to section 16(2)(b) is to be applied retrospectively.

(D) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue of writ of mandamus holding that the proceedings under Section 74 of the proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 does not survive in the absence of willful suppression.”

2. The respondents have raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the instant petition on the ground of availability of alternate statutory remedy as per the scheme of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short the ‘CGST Act’). It is submitted that the petition is premature at this stage as the petitioner has approached this Court against a show cause notice which is yet to be adjudicated. Even after the adjudication of the show cause notice, which always is done completely by observing principles of natural justice, there is a statutory alternate remedy available to the petitioner before appropriate forum, hence, the present petition deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable.

3. Thus, this Court is required to go into the question of maintainability of the instant writ petition on the ground of availability of alternate remedy and for this purpose certain minimal facts need to be noticed.

4. The petitioner is a partnership firm incorporated under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 inter alia, engaged in the supply of personal care and pharmaceuticals such as Medicaments, Beauty or Make-up Preparations, Preparations for use on the Hair Shampoos, Preparation for Oral or Dental Hygiene, Soap.

5. The petitioner is registered vide GSTIM 02AADFT3025B1Z1 under the Goods and Services Tax regime for the purpose of carrying out its business in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner has filed their monthly returns and discharged applicable tax liabilities.

6. The petitioner entered into an arrangement with the Goods Transportation Agencies (hereinafter referred to as ‘GTA’) for the transportation of goods into and out of the State of Himachal Pradesh.

7. The GTA services are taxable either under forward charge or reverse charge in terms of Notification No. 11/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and Notification No. 03/2022-Central Tax (Rate) dated 13.07.2022. The petitioner accordingly discharged GST and availed Input Tax Credit (hereinafter referred to as ‘ITC’) on the GTA services received.

8. The Books of Account of the petitioner were taken up for auditing by the Central Tax Department, pursuant to which audit enquiry notice was issued to the petitioner pointing out various discrepancies.

9. The petitioner filed a reply to the enquiry notice alongwith all the relevant supporting documents. The Deputy Commissioner, Goods and Services Tax (Audit) Circle-Baddi, Central Revenue Building, Plot No. 19, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh- 160017 issued Final Audit Report without considering the submissions made by the petitioner on the ground that the reply filed by it is untenable.

10. Thereafter, the petitioner received notice in Form DRC-01A dated 21.05.2024 directing it to discharge GST to the tune of Rs. 4,37,17,830/- alongwith interset and penalty by 31.05.2024. The petitioner filed a detailed reply on 30.05.2024 wherein it was submitted that the petitio