The Calcutta High Court, in LGW Industries Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax & Ors., examined the maintainability of a writ petition challenging an adjudication order passed under Section 74 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the financial year 2020–21. The petitioner assailed the adjudication order dated 19 July 2024 on the grounds that it had been passed without granting an opportunity of personal hearing, without permitting the filing of written submissions, and without allowing cross-examination of witnesses whose statements were relied upon by the department.

The petitioner contended that denial of cross-examination and opportunity of hearing amounted to a violation of principles of natural justice, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The adjudication order revealed that show cause notices in Form GST DRC-01 had been issued and that the petitioner had sought adjournment and cross-examination of multiple persons whose statements formed part of the investigation record. The adjudicating authority, after considering the request, rejected the plea for cross-examination on the ground that the statements were corroborative in nature and that joint hearings and verifications had already been conducted in the presence of the petitioner’s authorised representatives.

The High Court noted that the adjudication order had been passed under Section 74 of the GST Act, which provides a complete statutory mechanism of appeal under Section 107. The Court reiterated the settled principle that where an efficacious alternative remedy is available, the writ jurisdiction of the High Court ought not to be invoked, except in exceptional circumstances. It was held that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any such exceptional circumstance warranting bypass of the appellate remedy.

The Court further observed that allegations relating to denial of cross-examination and opportunity of hearing could be effectively examined by the appellate authority under the statutory framework. In view of the availability of a clear and adequate alternative remedy, the High Court declined to entertain the writ petition.

Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of, with liberty granted to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act within thirty days from the date of the order. The Court clarified that dismissal of the writ petition would not prejudice the petitioner’s right to pursue the statutory appellate remedy in accordance with law. No order as to costs was made.

 

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.