Mandeep Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And 2 Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Mandeep Singh, challenged an order dated 24.02.2022, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax Division, Tezpur, and the Superintendent (Adjudication), Central Goods and Service Tax Division, Tezpur. The impugned order directed the petitioner to pay a balance amount of Rs. 13,96,384/- along with a penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act. The order also stipulated that any aggrieved person could prefer an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST Central Excise and Customs, Guwahati, within three months in FORM ST-4. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court, seeking to set aside the impugned order.

Held

The Court held that a writ petition is not maintainable when an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy is available. The impugned order clearly provided for an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) within three months. The Court acknowledged that there might be a delay in filing the appeal. However, it noted the Supreme Court's order dated 10.01.2022 in Misc. Application No. 21/2022, which extended the period of limitation for judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022. The Court ruled that the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of this extension. Consequently, the petitioner was permitted to approach the Appellate Authority with their grievance within four weeks from the date of the order, and the operation of the impugned order was kept in abeyance for the same period. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's case regarding the balance amount or penalty.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner under the CGST Act? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the Supreme Court's order dated 10.01.2022, extending the period of limitation for judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, for filing an appeal against the impugned order? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner sought to set aside the impugned order. While not explicitly stated, the filing of a writ petition implies a challenge to the order's validity or the process. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's order extending the limitation period to argue for the applicability of this benefit to their appeal. Revenue's arguments: The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel for GST, did not explicitly present arguments in the judgment. However, their presence and the court's consideration of the alternative remedy indicate their position that the statutory appeal mechanism should be utilized.