9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 648X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - HON BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI AND HON BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM For the Appellants : Dr. A. Saraf, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. P.K. Bora and Mr. B. Sarma, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. S.C. Keyal, Standing Counsel, Central Goods Service Tax. JUDGMENT ORDER (ORAL) (VIJAY BISHNOI, CJ) Heard Dr. A. Saraf, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. P.K. Bora and Mr. B. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. S.C. Key ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the taxes paid by the appellant Company for supplying the medicines, consumable and other items to their in-house-patients by the tax payer during the relevant period as per law and there was no excess payment of tax. Some other reasons have also been mentioned in the show cause notices, which have been duly taken note of by the learned Single Judge. 5. As per the appellant Company, after receiving the show cause notices, 2(two) weeks further time were sought for by it for giving reply to the said show cause notices. However, the said time was not allowed and the orders rejecting the claim of refund of taxes of the appellant Company has been issued on different dates stating that their case do not fall under Serial No.74(a) of the Notification No.12/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. 6. In the writ petitions, the appellant Company has challenged the show cause notices issued by the respondent Department and the orders of rejecting their refund claims, details of which have been given by the learned Single Judge in Paragraph 3 of the impugned judgment order. 7. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the above mentioned writ petitions considering the objection raised on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being available. In support of the above contention, the learned senior counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court rendered in Godrej Sara Lee Limited -Vs- Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority Ors., reported in (2023) 109 GSTR 402 (SC). It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment order passed by the learned Single Judge may kindly be set aside and the matters may be remanded to the learned Single Judge for deciding the writ petitions on merits. 9. Per contra, Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned standing counsel, Central Goods Service Tax appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed the writ petitions and has argued that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality in dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellant Company on the ground of availability of alternate remedy. It is contended that the appellant Company has essentially filed the writ petitions being aggrieved with the decision of the Assistant Commissioner, GST Central Excise, Guwahati, whereby the claims of the appellant Company for refund of taxes has been rejected. It is argued that under the CGST Act, 2017, complete mechanism is provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... smissing 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. Recently, a 3(three) Judges Bench of the Hon ble Supreme Court in PHR Invent Educational Society (supra) has held as under:- 14. The law with regard to entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in case of availability of alternative remedy is well settled. In the case of Satyawati Tondon (supra), this Court observed thus: 43. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. It has been held that, though the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution are of widest amplitude, still the Courts cannot be oblivious of the rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by this Court. The Court further held that though the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, still it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. 16. The view taken by this Court has been followed in the case of Agarwal Tracom Private Limited v. Punjab National Bank and Others, (2018) 1 SCC 626 : 2017 INSC 1146. 17. In the case of Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Another v. Mathew K.C., (2018) 3 SCC 85 : 2018 INSC 71, this Court was considering an appeal against an interim order passed by the High Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution staying further proceedings at the stage of Section 13 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the High Courts have continued to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 ignoring the statutory remedies under the RDBFI Act and the SARFAESI Act. 22. It can thus be seen that it is more than a settled legal position of law that in such matters, the High Court should not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution particularly when an alternative statutory remedy is available. 23. .. 24. .. .. .. 28. Insofar as the contention of the Borrower and its reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Mohammad Nooh (supra) is concerned, no doubt that non-exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of self-restraint. There cannot be any doubt with that proposition. In this respect, it will be relevant to refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and Others v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2014) 1 SCC 603: 15. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognised some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy i.e. where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
