M/S. Ocl Iron And Steel LTD. vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax

Held

The Court acknowledged the existence of alternative remedies for the petitioner under Sections 100 and 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, for challenging the assessment orders and under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017, for revocation of cancellation of registration. The Court did not quash the impugned orders directly. Instead, it granted the petitioner liberty to pursue these alternative remedies. The Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal against the assessment orders within 15 days before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The appellate authority was directed to dispose of the appeal on merits expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks. Simultaneously, if the petitioner filed an application for revocation of cancellation of registration within the same period, the competent authority was directed to decide it on merits. The Court thus disposed of the writ petition with these directions.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. OCL Iron and Steel Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging several orders passed by the Superintendent, Goods and Service Tax & Central Excise, Rajgangpur Range, Sundergarh. These orders included assessment orders dated January 6, 2020, February 26, 2020, and July 8, 2020, as well as a GST cancellation order dated June 18, 2020. The petitioner initially sought to quash these orders and also requested a direction for the disposal of another application. During arguments, the petitioner withdrew the prayer for disposal of the application and confined their arguments to quashing the impugned orders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when alternative remedies are available under the CGST Act, 2017? (Question of law, turning on Section 100 and Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017). 2. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to approach the appellate authority and the competent authority for revocation of cancellation of registration? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner, having approached the High Court directly, sought liberty to file an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, against the assessment orders. They also requested an opportunity to approach the competent authority under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017, for redressal of their grievance regarding the cancellation of registration. Revenue's arguments: The opposite party-Department contended that Sections 100 and 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, provide for appeals against assessment orders. Furthermore, Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017, deals with the revocation of cancellation of registration. Therefore, an alternative remedy was available to the petitioner, and they should have approached the appellate authority instead of filing a writ petition.