2024 (12) TMI 785 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - rejection of refund claim - HELD THAT - Recently in the case of Oberoi Constructions Limited Vs. Union of India and ors. 2024 (11) TMI 588 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , several precedents on the practice of exhaustion of alternate remedies considered. By adopting the reasoning in the said decision, this petition is declined decline to be entertained. The contentions on merits must be examined by the Appellate Authorities under the Act. No case is made out to deviate from the usual practice of exhaustion of alternate remedies. By adopting the reasoning in Oberoi Constructions Limited instead of repeating the reasons and precedents, this petition is dismissed but with liberty to the Petitioner to avail of the alternate remedy of appeal. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Refund Rejection Order under MGST Act, Availability of alternate remedy under CGST Act, Principles of natural justice regarding fair hearing, Bypassing statutory alternate remedies, Exhaustion of alternate remedies practice.

Analysis:
The Petitioner challenged the Refund Rejection Order dated 22nd April 2024, contending that it was illegal and violated natural justice principles. The Petitioner claimed that the Appellate remedy under the CGST Act was not efficacious or adequate, seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court noted that the Petitioner had opportunities for a fair hearing but failed to avail them fully, leading to a lack of adequate hearing rather than a complete absence of hearing. The Court emphasized that the statutory remedy of appeal should not be bypassed, as it would clog the judicial process.

The Court highlighted that the impugned order contained reasons for the refund rejection, even though the Petitioner argued to the contrary. The State pointed out the reasons provided in the order, indicating that the Petitioner had an alternate remedy of statutory appeal that should be pursued. Citing a previous judgment, the Court emphasized the importance of exhausting alternate remedies before approaching the Court directly. The Court declined to entertain the petition, directing the Petitioner to avail of the alternate remedy of appeal to address the contentions on merits.

The Court referenced a specific case to support its decision, emphasizing the need for the Petitioner to follow the usual practice of exhausting alternate remedies before seeking judicial intervention. The Petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal within four weeks, with instructions for the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal on merits without addressing the limitation issue. The Court underscored that all contentions, including those related to natural justice, should be considered by the Appellate Authority, highlighting the importance of not bypassing statutory alternate remedies. The petition was disposed of with no costs, and all parties were directed to act on the court's order.