M/S Eci Engineering And Construction Co LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And 2 Ors

Held

The Court agreed with the petitioner that there is no absolute bar to approaching a writ court, especially when a jurisdictional issue is involved, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in Whirlpool Corporation. However, the Court also held that the jurisdictional issue could be raised before the appellate authority. The Court opined that the dispute involves technical aspects requiring expertise, for which an appellate forum is provided by statute. Therefore, instead of adjudicating the matter under Article 226, the Court directed the petitioner to raise the dispute before the appellate authority. The Court also granted relief regarding the limitation period, directing that if the appeal is filed within 45 days from the date of the order, the delay would not be a bar to its adjudication on merits. The Court explicitly stated that no opinion on the merits of the case was rendered and that the appeal should be decided on its own merits. An interim order operating in the matter was directed to be kept operative until the appeal is disposed of.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s ECI Engineering and Construction Co Ltd, is a constituent of a joint venture awarded the contract for constructing the Dimapur to Kohima national highway. The petitioner, its partner RAMKY, and the joint venture itself had three separate GST registrations. The petitioner contends that GST has been levied on the joint venture, and a separate levy on the petitioner constitutes double taxation. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 23.08.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner, GST, Dimapur, and has approached the High Court challenging this order, raising a jurisdictional issue. The tax period is not specified.

Key Issues

1. Whether a writ court can entertain a petition challenging an order when an alternative appellate remedy is available, particularly when a jurisdictional issue is raised (turning on the principles of Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the availability of statutory appeal). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argues that despite the availability of an appeal, a writ court can entertain the petition due to the jurisdictional issue involved, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai and Ors. (1998) 8 SCC. Revenue's contention: The respondent (Union of India and others) contends that the impugned order is appealable, and the petitioner has been apprised of the appellate provisions and the appellate authority within the order itself. Therefore, the petitioner should avail the statutory remedy.