M/S.Nirmal Kumar Swain vs. Commissioner Audit,GST And Central Escise

Held

The Court held that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal against the impugned order. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with directions for the petitioner to approach the Tribunal. The Tribunal was instructed to consider the grounds of appeal, condone any delay by taking into account the period the writ petition was pending before the High Court (from 05.07.2018 until the date of the order), and consider the petitioner's application for pre-deposit in light of amounts already paid. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts may direct parties to avail statutory alternative remedies when available, especially when the pendency before the High Court was due to a bona fide mistake, and to ensure that the period spent before the wrong forum is not detrimental to the litigant.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging an order dated 02.04.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Audit), GST, Central Excise and Service, Bhubaneswar. The petitioner sought to quash this order, alleging it was illegal, arbitrary, and mala fide. The writ petition was filed on 05.07.2018. The Court noted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing an appeal against the impugned order. The Court directed that if the petitioner approaches the Tribunal within 30 days, the Tribunal should consider the grounds raised and also take into account the period the writ petition was pending before the High Court for any delay condonation, attributing it to a bona fide mistake of approaching the wrong forum. The petitioner was also permitted to make an application before the Tribunal regarding pre-deposit, which the Tribunal was to consider in light of amounts already paid.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has an alternative remedy against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Audit), GST, Central Excise and Service, Bhubaneswar, and if so, what is the appropriate course of action for the petitioner? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner approached the High Court by way of a writ petition, implying a challenge to the legality and arbitrariness of the order. The specific arguments regarding illegality, arbitrariness, and mala fide were not elaborated in the provided text, as the Court's focus was on the alternative remedy. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the revenue or state. However, the Court's observation that the petitioner has an alternative remedy implies the revenue/state would likely rely on the statutory appeal mechanism available.