9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 648 - HC - GSTMaintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Refund of taxes oaid in excess inadvertently due to ignorance and lack of clarity of the provisions of law - HELD THAT - It is true that the Hon ble Supreme Court in various pronouncements and in M/S GODREJ SARA LEE LTD. VERSUS THE EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICERCUM- ASSESSING AUTHORITY ORS. 2023 (2) TMI 64 - SUPREME COURT has observed that where the controversy is purely a legal one and it does not involve disputed questions of fact but only questions of law, then it should be decided by the High Court instead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy being available. However, at the same time, the Hon ble Supreme Court has also laid down that where the statute under which the action complained of contains a complete mechanism for redressal of grievances of a person complaining, a writ petition should not be entertained. In the present cases, it is not the case of the appellant Company that the authority has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders. It is also not the case of the appellant Company that the CGST Act, 2017 do not contain a comprehensive mechanism for redressal of its grievances. The discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge in refusing to entertain the writ petitions on the ground of availability of efficacious alternate remedy is not liable to be interfered with and, therefore, the present writ appeals are dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Excess payment of GST by the appellant Company. 2. Rejection of refund claims by the GST Department. 3. Maintainability of writ petitions in the presence of an alternative remedy. 4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Detailed Analysis: 1. Excess Payment of GST by the Appellant Company: The appellant Company, operating a hospital, claimed that it inadvertently paid GST on services provided to in-house patients due to ignorance and lack of clarity in the law. They later sought a refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act/SGST Act, read with Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, after realizing that the services were exempt from GST as composite health services. 2. Rejection of Refund Claims by the GST Department: The refund applications were met with deficiency memos from the Department, requesting additional documents. Despite furnishing the required documents, the Department issued show cause notices stating that the exemption applied only to healthcare services and not to goods and other items supplied. Consequently, the refund claims were rejected on the grounds that the taxes paid were for the supply of medicines and consumables, which were not exempt under the relevant notification (Serial No.74(a) of Notification No.12/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017). 3. Maintainability of Writ Petitions in the Presence of an Alternative Remedy: The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions, citing the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Judge observed that the disputed questions of fact could be more appropriately resolved by the Appellate Authority. The appellant Company argued that the issues were purely legal and should be decided by the High Court, referencing the Supreme Court's stance in Godrej Sara Lee Limited -Vs- Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority & Ors. 4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution: The High Court, referencing the Supreme Court's rulings, reiterated that while the High Court has wide jurisdiction under Article 226, it should exercise self-restraint when an effective alternative remedy is available. The Court noted that the CGST Act, 2017, provides a comprehensive mechanism for redressal of grievances, and the appellant Company had not demonstrated any jurisdictional error or violation of fundamental principles of judicial procedure by the authority. Thus, the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge in refusing to entertain the writ petitions was upheld. Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the writ appeals, emphasizing the availability of an alternative remedy under the CGST Act, 2017, and the principle of judicial self-restraint in tax-related matters. The Court found no compelling reason to interfere with the learned Single Judge's decision, reinforcing the established legal position that writ petitions should not be entertained when a statutory remedy is available. No order as to costs was made.
|
