2024 (7) TMI 1444 - HC - GST

Maintainibility of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Challenge to Order-in-Original (OIO) - HELD THAT - The impugned OIO, at best, can be said to be an erroneous order. No amount of argument is advanced to show that it suffers from any patent lack of jurisdiction. It is trite that despite availability of statutory alternative remedy, interference under Article 226 of the Constitution can be made in certain circumstances. However, this is discretion of the Court and not a compulsion. In M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. 2023 (2) TMI 64 - SUPREME COURT , the reason for entertaining a petition was point was confined to interpretation of law and there were no disputed questions of fact. The Apex Court recently passed a detailed order against the judgment of this Court in PHR Invent Educational Society Vs. UCO Bank and Others 2024 (4) TMI 466 - SUPREME COURT (LB) disapproving the action of entertaining the writ petition despite availability of alternative remedy. In this view of the matter, since the petitioner has a statutory efficacious alternative remedy, it is not required to entertain this petition because the petitioner has not shown any of those ingredients on which interference can be made by bypassing the statutory remedy. Petitioner has not shown that the impugned OIO suffers from jurisdictional error or constitutionality of any provision etc., is under challenge. Mere violation of principles of natural justice etc., cannot always be a reason for interference in a writ petition. The petitioner is unable to show any such flaw which can form basis for interference in the impugned OIO by this Court. It also could not be established as to what palpable injustice would be caused to the petitioner if he is relegated to avail alternative remedy. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Order-in-Original (OIO) dated 03.04.2024 despite availability of alternative remedy.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought to challenge the Order-in-Original (OIO) dated 03.04.2024 despite the existence of a statutory remedy of appeal under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that a writ petition is always maintainable, citing a recent judgment of the Apex Court in M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority. On the other hand, the Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC contended that an alternative remedy was available as mentioned in the impugned OIO itself.

The High Court, after hearing both parties, opined that the impugned OIO could be considered an erroneous order at best, without any patent lack of jurisdiction. While acknowledging the availability of a statutory alternative remedy, the Court highlighted that interference under Article 226 of the Constitution could be made in certain circumstances at the discretion of the Court, not as a compulsion. The Court referred to the recent judgment in M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd., where the Apex Court emphasized the importance of exhausting alternative remedies, especially in matters involving recovery of public dues.

The Court further emphasized that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error or challenge to the constitutionality of any provision in the impugned OIO. Mere violation of principles of natural justice was deemed insufficient to warrant interference in a writ petition. The Court referenced previous judgments to support the principle that unless there is a fundamental flaw impacting jurisdiction or causing palpable injustice, the High Court should refrain from entertaining writ petitions.

Ultimately, the Court declined to interfere in the impugned OIO, noting that the petitioner had not shown any significant flaw warranting bypassing the statutory remedy. The petitioner was granted liberty to avail the alternative appellate remedy, and the writ petition was disposed of without costs. Any pending interlocutory applications were also closed as a result of the judgment.