Case Details: Super Service Point vs. Union of India (2025) 34 Centax 396 (Guj.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Bhargav D. Karia & Pranav Trivedi, JJ.
- S/Shri Sameer Gupta & Monal S. Chaglani, for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri Abhishek Jain, Asstt. Govt. Pleader & Pradip D Bhate, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner-assessee had challenged an order passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act and the Gujarat GST Act in Form GST DRC-07, arising out of a consolidated show cause notice issued for determination of GST liability. It was contended that the adjudicating authority ought to have issued and decided separate orders for each period instead of passing a single consolidated order. The petitioner, therefore, invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court seeking quashing of the said order. The matter was accordingly placed before the Gujarat High Court.
High Court Held
The Gujarat High Court held that since the impugned order was passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act and the Gujarat GST Act, an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 thereof was available to the petitioner. Referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commercial Steel Ltd. [2021 (52) G.S.T.L. 385 (S.C.)], the Court observed that when such an alternative remedy exists, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily be invoked. The Court further noted that the petitioner was at liberty to raise all permissible grounds before the appellate authority. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, relegating the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy under Section 107 of the said Acts.
List of Cases Cited
- Asstt. Commissioner v. Commercial Steel Ltd. — 2021 (52) G.S.T.L. 385 (S.C.) — Followed [Paras 4, 5]
