The Madras High Court ruled that the writ petition is not maintainable as Statutory Alternative Remedy under GST Act.
Mr.G.Natarajan, learned counsel for writ petitioner, M/s. Steel Centre in all the three writ petitions made one focused submission in the Virtual Court and that focused submission is, the writ petitioner has sent a reply to the three impugned orders, the respondent has held that it finds reply to be admissible, but has ultimately passed impugned orders on the basis that the writ petitioner is the beneficiary of ‘Input Tax Credit’ and the same has been adjusted towards outward tax liability. The objections of the writ petitioner have not been considered and objections of writ petitioner not being considered is a violation of one of the facets of ‘Natural Justice Principle’.
Ms.Amirta Dinakaran, State counsel accepted notice on behalf of lone respondent in all the three writ petitions. Owing to the narrow compass of the captioned writ petitions and acute legal angle on which the matter turns, the main writ petitions were taken up with the consent of learned counsel on both sides.
The Single Bench of Justice M.Sundar alleged Natural Justice Principle facet violation in this case is not compelling enough. Absent compelling ‘Natural Justice Principle violation, as there is no other exception (exceptions to alternate remedy rule) that arises in the case on hand, it is clear that this is a fit case to relegate the writ petitioner to alternate remedy by way of statutory appeal under Section 107 of TN- GST Act and C-GST Act.Subscribe Taxscan AdFree to view the Judgment