M/S Sidharth Engineering vs. The Asst. Commnr. CGST And Central Excise, Angul

Held

The High Court held that it should not entertain the writ petition at this stage, given that an appeal against the demand notice is already pending before the Commissioner of GST, Central Excise and Customs (Appeal). The Court reasoned that the petitioner has a statutory remedy available in the form of an appeal. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. The Court clarified that it remains open for the petitioner to pursue the appeal in accordance with the law and to seek appropriate interim orders from the appellate authority.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sidharth Engineering, received a demand notice dated June 4, 2021, from the Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Angul, for Rs. 57,83,450/-. This demand pertains to the period from 2012-13 to 2017-18 and up to June 2017. The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal before the Commissioner of GST, Central Excise and Customs (Appeal). This appeal was pending at the time the writ petition was filed before the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when an appeal against the demand notice is pending before the appellate authority, as per Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 (or equivalent provisions for the pre-GST period)? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner, by filing a writ petition, implicitly sought intervention from the High Court. While not explicitly recorded, the act of filing the writ suggests a desire for immediate relief or a challenge to the process, bypassing the appellate route initially. Revenue's Argument: The Opposite Parties, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, would likely argue that the statutory remedy of appeal is available and should be exhausted before approaching the High Court under its writ jurisdiction. They would rely on the principle of alternative remedies.