2026-VIL-1245-RAJ

SGST High Court Cases

GST - Maintainability of writ petition against SCN and order under Section 74, Secondment of employees by overseas company - Alternate statutory remedy under CGST Act, 2017 - Petitioner, a subsidiary of an overseas company, had employees seconded from the overseas company under a dispatch agreement, with part of the salary paid in India and the foreign part paid abroad and recovered from the Petitioner through quarterly debit notes - Department treated the secondment as import of manpower supply service, and the order confirmed the tax under reverse charge, denied input tax credit and imposed penalty and interest by invoking Section 74 - Respondents objected to maintainability on the ground of the statutory remedy of appeal - HELD - The power under Article 226 is wide but discretionary, and an alternate remedy does not take it away, but courts restrain themselves where the statute provides an effective remedy. A writ may lie despite an alternate remedy only for enforcing a fundamental right, for breach of natural justice, against an order wholly without jurisdiction, or to challenge the vires of a statute, and the Petitioner must show that its case truly falls within one of these exceptions - The CGST Act is a self-contained code providing for adjudication, first appeal, appeal to the Tribunal and appeal on a substantial question of law to the High Court. Whether a secondment is a supply depends on the whole arrangement read with the actual conduct of the parties and is a mixed question rooted in facts - The statutory authorities have the tools to examine the facts and further inquiry by the appellate authority - The scheme is a legislative choice under which facts are found by the adjudicating authority, the appellate authority and the Tribunal, and the High Court comes in only on a substantial question of law. The scheme also protects the taxpayer as recovery of the balance stands stayed on payment of the pre-deposit - The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of an efficacious alternate remedy - Notice and order issued by the same officer - Sections 74(1) and 74(9) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Petitioner contended that the SCN and the order were signed by the same officer, who was thus accuser and judge and that the appeal would be futile as the appellate authority would follow the earlier decision mechanically - Whether the issue of notice and passing of order by the same officer is a breach of natural justice bringing the case within the exception to the rule of alternate remedy - HELD - Section 74(1) empowers the proper officer to serve the SCN and Section 74(9) directs the same proper officer to consider the representation and determine the tax, interest and penalty. The statute itself places both functions on the proper officer, and this is the design of the law and not a lapse by the officer - The rule against bias strikes at personal interest or a real likelihood of prejudgment, and no personal interest or malice was alleged. An officer who issues a notice forms only a prima facie view, which is what the statute requires before any person is called upon to answer, and the question is whether the officer kept his mind open to the reply. The Petitioner was heard, filed replies and further submissions, and its real grievance that the submissions were not accepted or not dealt with well enough is a complaint about the quality of reasoning, which is a ground of appeal and not a denial of hearing - The fear that the appellate authority will not apply its mind is speculative, as the appeal lies to a separate authority which must give reasons under Section 107(12), with further remedies before the Tribunal and the High Court - The ground of breach of natural justice is rejected and the writ petition is dismissed.

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page