Heard Sri V.K. Upadhya, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ritvik Upadhya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.P. Singh Kachhawah, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.

This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief:

“i) issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record of the case and to quash the impugned order dated 29.03.2022 passed by the respondent no. 2 for the F.Y. 2017-2018 Tax Period Aug 2017-Feb 2018 (Annexure-1 to this writ petition).”

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order under Section 74 of the CGST/ SGST Act, 2017 has been passed in breach of principles of natural justice inasmuch as no opportunity of hearing was afforded by the Proper Officer to the petitioner to explain the things. In support of his submissions, he relied upon judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad and others, (2012) 4 SCC 407, Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and others, (2010) 13 SCC 427, Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2013) 4 SCC 465 and Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. vs. State of Bihar and others, 2021 SCC OnLine 801.

Learned standing counsel supports the impugned order.

We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the impugned order. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the Proper Officer has issued detailed show cause notice based on documentary evidences indicating evasion of turnover and tax. In the impugned order, the Proper Officer under the CGST/ SGST Act, 2017 has recorded a finding that “pursuant to the notice, assessee appeared and mainly pressed point Nos.5, 7, 9 and 10 of the show cause notice.” Thus, as per the impugned order, it appears that the petitioner has pressed his reply before the Proper Officer only on point Nos.5, 7, 9 and 10 of the show cause notice and his submissions have been noted by the Proper Officer in the impugned order and, thereafter giving reasons, contention of the petitioner has been rejected. It is not the case of the petitioner before us that he pressed his reply to the show cause notice against all the points and still it has not been considered by the Proper Officer. Since the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal in which questions of fact and law may be raised and, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/ SGST Act, 2017. It is made clear that in the event the petitioner files an appeal before the appellate authority complying with the statutory provisions, then the appeal shall be heard by the appellate authority without being influenced by any of the observations made in the body of this order.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed.