M/S.Sarala Madan Infrastructure Project PVT.LTD. vs. Commissioner,Audit,Commissionerate,GST And Central Excise

Held

The Court held that there is an alternative remedy of appeal available to the petitioner, which can redress their grievance. The Court reasoned that pursuing the writ petition was not the appropriate course of action when a statutory appeal mechanism exists. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts should generally relegate parties to alternative remedies when such remedies are available and efficacious. The Court directed that if an appeal is preferred within thirty days from the date of the order, the period spent pursuing the writ petition (from 21.08.2018 till the date of the order) would be considered for condonation of delay under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The Appellate Authority was directed to hear and decide the interim application along with the appeal expeditiously, preferably within four months from the date of filing the appeal. No recovery was to be made from the petitioner for four weeks. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 03.04.2018 passed by the Commissioner, Audit Commissionerate, GST and Central Excise, under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act. The petitioner sought redressal of their grievance through this writ petition. The High Court considered the materials on record and the arguments presented by both the petitioner's counsel and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the revenue.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has an alternative remedy available for redressal of their grievance, as contemplated by law? The petitioner argued that the writ petition was the appropriate forum to challenge the order. The revenue contended that an alternative appellate remedy exists and should be pursued. The Court had to decide if the writ petition was maintainable in light of the existence of an alternative statutory appeal mechanism.