Petitioner challenges Ext.P9 order of assessment issued by the first respondent.

2. Petitioner is registered under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘CGST’ Act) and is engaged in the purchase and sale of gold ornaments. Pursuant to an inspection of the business place of the petitioner on 03.09.2019, proceedings were initiated under Section 74 (1) of the CGST Act, proposing to impose penalty. Ext.P8 reply was filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice issued and thereafter by Ext.P9 order, the first respondent imposed penalty under Section 74(9) of the CGST Act, alleging suppression of turnover and evation of tax detected for the year 2019-20.

3. Adv.P.S.Soman, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that, in spite of all the objections that may arise on the maintainability of the writ petition, the petitioner is justified in invoking the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the sole reason that the copies of all documents purportedly used by the assessing officer against the petitioner to impose penalty was not given to the petitioner. Referring to the mahazar, wherein data as recovered for the period 14.01.2013 to 14.12.2017 was mentioned, according to the learned counsel, the assessing officer proceeded to deal with data recovered for the period from 14.01.2013 to 01.09.2019. According to the learned counsel, the said approach is perverse and violative of principles of natural justice, since documents have been used against the petitioner behind its back.

4. The learned Senior Government Pleader Dr.Thushara James, on the other hand submitted that copies of every document utilised against the petitioner was served to the petitioner and that no evidence or documents were utilised behind the back of the petitioner. It was further submitted that even otherwise, whether the copies of all documents were given to the petitioner or not itself requires appreciation of facts and even a disputed fact by itself and hence this Court ought not to interfere in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. On a consideration of the rival contentions, I am of the view that the remedy under Article 226 cannot be invoked by the petitioner. It is noticed from a reading of paragraph 37 of Ext.P9 that the very same contentions, now raised by the petitioner before this Court, was raised by the petitioner before the assessing officer also. Adverting to the said contentions, it was held by the assessing officer that the allegations raised against the period and the date to which the data relates have no basis. It was also observed by the assessing officer that in the mahazar prepared on 26.11.2019, it was specifically mentioned that the data related to the business transactions of the dealer for the period 14.01.2013 to 01.09.2019 and the dealer signed it without any objection. On an appreciation of the findings recorded by the assessing officer, this Court is of the view that the contentions raised by the petitioner alleging violation of natural justice was in fact raised before the assessing authority itself and even considered. The correctness or otherwise of the said finding is a matter which requires appreciation of evidence and documents. It is not proper on the part of this Court to appreciate such disputed questions of fact while invoking the writ jurisdiction. In such circumstances, there is no merit in the contentions raised.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that Ext.P10 is challenged in the writ petition and that there is no appellate remedy available against Ext.P10. Though this Court was impressed with the said contention initially, on an appreciation of the reliefs claimed in this writ petition, it is noticed that no specific relief is claimed in the writ petition against Ext.P10. Even otherwise Ext.P10 is a decision which is subject to an appeal under Section 107 and therefore the same is not maintainable even on that score.

7. As held by the Supreme Court repeatedly including in the latest decision of Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Others v. M/s. Commercial Steel Limited where an alternate remedy exists under the statute, unless exceptional circumstances exists, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 is not liable to be invoked. On a consideration of the contentions raised and the deliberations as above, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Hence this writ petition is dismissed reserving the liberty of the petitioner to pursue his statutory remedies in accordance with law.