2026-VIL-677-DEL
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-677-DEL

SGST High Court Cases

GST - Jurisdiction under Article 226 - Alternate Statutory Remedy - Non-compliance with Sections 74(9) and 75(4) of CGST Act, 2017 – Proceedings for mis-declaration, undervaluation and clandestine clearance of taxable goods - Petitioner assails an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 74 of the CGST Act on grounds of violation of Sections 74(9) and 75(4), denial of cross-examination of witnesses, reliance on coerced statements under Section 70, and excess of jurisdiction in imposing penalties – HELD - While Article 226 jurisdiction may be invoked in exceptional circumstances involving breach of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice principles, excess of jurisdiction, or challenge to vires of legislation, the mere invocation of these grounds is insufficient to bypass statutory remedy – Under Section 74(9), the adjudicating authority is obligated to consider representations made by the person chargeable with tax, however, the adequacy of reasons and correctness of findings fall within the appellate authority's domain, and merely because the authority has not elaborately dealt with every submission does not indicate non-consideration of the representation - Regarding Section 75(4), the alleged non-service of hearing notices raises disputed questions of fact requiring examination of departmental records, which are best examined by the appellate authority. Similarly, issues concerning voluntariness of statements recorded under Section 70, effect of their retraction, evidentiary value thereof, and necessity of cross-examination pertain to merits of adjudication are capable of being effectively urged before the appellate authority – The challenge to the competence of the adjudicating authority to impose the penalties also does not disclose any patent lack of jurisdiction warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution - There is no patent jurisdictional defect or manifest violation of natural justice principles warranting extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed, directing that the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, with the period of pendency of the writ petition not being reckoned for limitation purposes – The petition is dismissed
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Kasi Viswanathan V

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GSTAT Filing Near: Closing Resolutions...
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Security-Code
New Code?

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Security-Code
New Code?

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?