Heard.

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner, an assessee of Goods and Service Tax, has prayed as follows:-

“A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order passed by respondent no. 2 on 29.04.2022 (contained as Annexure No. 1 to this petition)”

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he is having a contractor license for the year 2016-17 but he was not carrying out the services of a contractor but he was using his contracts, three in numbers, for transportation service only, and, therefore, he is exempted from any services tax as such service is exempted, mentioning in the negative list. He raised this issue before the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Division Haldwani, Nainital but the Assistant Commissioner came to hold that contention/ objection raised by the petitioner is not supported by any document, and, therefore, the issue was decided him. He was communicated by the Authorities vide letter dated 29.04.2022 that the order has been passed, imposing penalty against him and he may prefer an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeal), Dehradun within sixty days. He did not prefer an appeal. On 14.09.2022, he filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the observations made by the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court, which was followed by the Division Bench of this court in SPA No. 123 of 2022, and stated that the writ petition is maintainable as the petitioner is left remediless. However, this Court take into consideration the observations made by the Full Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of Panoli Intermediate (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others, 2016 0 AIR (Guj.) 97, while referring this Full Bench Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, it is seen that the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be preferred for challenging the order passed by the original adjudicating authority in following circumstances that:

A.1) The authority has passed the order without jurisdiction or by assuming jurisdiction which there exist none.

A.2) He acted in flagrant disregard to law or rules or procedure or acted in violation of principles of natural justice where no procedure is specified.

B) Resultantly, there is a failure of justice or it has resulted into gross injustice.

5. Thus it is clear that in limited circumstances wherein forum of appeal is provided with a un-extendable limitation, petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be entertained, after the expire of limitation, and the order impugned can be quashed. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner failed to satisfy the Court that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, GST was without jurisdiction or that he acted in flagrant disregard to law or rules of procedure or acted in violation of principles of natural justice. The Assistant Commissioner, has noticed the petitioner and after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing he has passed the order impugned. There is no violation of any principle of natural justice or any rules or procedure in this case. So, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner cannot be interfered with in a application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. Additionally, this Court takes note of the fact that the petitioner in essence is praying for exercise of writ jurisdiction for issuance of a certiorari. Certiorari jurisdiction are not exercise for quashing mere error of fact of law unless there is substantial question of law arises regarding the jurisdiction etc. of the Tribunal and that if that order is allowed to stand a gross injustice would allow to be perpetuated. It is not the case here. There is no gross injustice in this case. There is no violation of rules or procedure and principle of natural justice. Hence, application for exercise of certiorari jurisdiction is not expedient in the interest of justice.

7. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.

8. No order as to costs.