Hitachi Astemo Fie Private Limited Thr. Authorized Signatory Abhishek G. Trivedi vs. The Additional Commissioner Central GST Pune I And Ors

Held

The Court declined to entertain the writ petition, holding that no case was made out to deviate from the usual practice of requiring parties to exhaust alternate statutory remedies. The Court found the petitioner's averments regarding the availability of an alternate remedy to be misleading, as the impugned order clearly indicated the availability of an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). Regarding the petitioner's contention that the impugned order was without jurisdiction and a product of non-application of mind, the Court stated that whether the Supreme Court's decisions were considered correctly is a matter that can be agitated before the Appellate Authority. The Court distinguished the case of Onkarlal Nandlal, noting it turned on its facts and that the issue here involved interpretation of a Supreme Court decision, which the Appellate Authority could also do. The Court also held that the pre-deposit requirement does not render the alternate remedy inefficacious, especially as there was no averment that the petitioner could not arrange for the pre-deposit. The Court kept open the contention regarding the notification dated March 31, 2023, for the petitioner to press if they do not succeed before the Appellate Authority. The Court directed that if the petitioner files an appeal within four weeks of the order's upload, the Appellate Authority should consider it on merits without adverting to limitation, as the petition was filed within the limitation period and the petitioner was bona fide in pursuing it. All contentions on merits were left open for the Appellate Authority to hear and pass a reasoned order.

Facts

The petitioner, Hitachi Astemo FIE Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an Order-in-Original dated December 29, 2023, passed by the Principal Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Pune. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was without jurisdiction and a product of non-application of mind, specifically citing reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in CC, CE & ST, Bangalore (Adj.) etc. Vs. Northern Operating Systems Private Limited without appreciating distinguishing features. The petitioner also argued that an appeal would not be efficacious due to the requirement of pre-deposit and the binding nature of the Supreme Court's decision on the appellate authority. The respondents argued that the petitioner had an alternate statutory remedy of appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and that the Supreme Court's decision was correctly considered. They also noted that the challenge to a notification dated March 31, 2023, was not raised earlier.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court, or should the petitioner be relegated to the alternate statutory remedy of appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals)? (Question of law) 2. Whether the impugned Order-in-Original dated December 29, 2023, passed by the Principal Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Pune, is without jurisdiction and a product of non-application of mind, particularly concerning the reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in CC, CE & ST, Bangalore (Adj.) etc. Vs. Northern Operating Systems Private Limited? (Question of mixed law and fact) 3. Whether the requirement of pre-deposit for availing the alternate remedy renders it not efficacious? (Question of law) Petitioner's contentions: The impugned order is without jurisdiction and a product of non-application of mind. The adjudicating authority relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Northern Operating Systems Private Limited without appreciating distinguishing features. The decision in M/s. Onkarlal Nandlal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. was cited to argue that an appellate authority cannot take a different view from a Supreme Court decision. An appeal would involve pre-deposit, making the alternate remedy not efficacious. The extension of period via notification dated March 31, 2023, was illegal as the COVID-19 pandemic had passed. Respondents' contentions: The challenge to the notification dated March 31, 2023, was not raised. There are no circumstances to deviate from the practice of exhausting alternate remedies. The Supreme Court's decision in Northern Operating Systems Private Limited was considered correctly and is binding. The adjudicating authority considered the Supreme Court's decisions, and whether such consideration was correct is a matter for the Appellate Authority.