Mohammed Irfan Ahmad vs. The Assistant Commissioner

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise. Therefore, the writ petition was not entertained directly. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) within fifteen days from the date of the order, along with a copy of the High Court's order. The appellate authority was directed to consider and dispose of the appeal on merits within sixty days from its filing. The Court also directed that the application seeking waiver of pre-deposit may be considered by the appellate authority while deciding the appeal. The ratio decidendi is that statutory remedies must be exhausted before approaching the High Court under its writ jurisdiction, especially when the appellate authority can grant appropriate relief, including waiver of pre-deposit.

Facts

The petitioner, Mahammed Irfan Ahmad, filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging an order dated 24.03.2020 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Tax, GST & Central Excise, Rourkela-I Division. The petitioner contended that the entire demanded amount had been paid and requested a waiver of the pre-deposit requirement for filing an appeal. The revenue, represented by Mr. R.S. Chimanka, Sr. SC, was the opposite party. The tax period and the specific amount in dispute were not explicitly stated in the judgment. The procedural history involved the filing of a writ petition directly before the High Court instead of pursuing the statutory appellate remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal is available under the GST law? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the entire demanded amount had been paid and therefore, the requirement of pre-deposit for filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) should be waived. The petitioner sought direct intervention from the High Court. Revenue's Argument: The revenue contended that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and thus, the writ petition was not maintainable. No specific provisions or precedents were cited by either side in the judgment.