M/S Sree Balaji Constructions vs. The Superintendent Of Central Tax

Held

The Court did not entertain the writ petition. The primary reason for dismissal was the existence of a statutory alternative remedy of appeal, which was raised as a preliminary objection. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's argument that the challenge was based on a lack of jurisdiction, but ultimately left it open to the petitioner to pursue the appropriate statutory remedy if they were so advised. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's claims regarding jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, or the legality of the order in relation to Section 50 of the CGST/SGST Acts. The Court's decision was based on the principle that writ jurisdiction is an extraordinary remedy and should not be invoked when an adequate alternative remedy exists. Therefore, the Court dismissed the writ petition, leaving the petitioner to avail the statutory appeal process.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sree Balaji Constructions, filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original (No. YL0401-41-2023-24, dated 25-10-2023) passed by the Superintendent of Central Tax, Kadapa. This order, pertaining to the tax period 2018-19, imposed a disputed interest amount of Rs. 54,30,216/-. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction, violated principles of natural justice, and was contrary to amendments in Section 50 of the CGST/SGST Acts and various judgments. The petitioner also argued that a previous order dated 23.08.2023 by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Tirupati, for the same tax period had been paid, and this prior order had not been revised. The respondents, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, initially submitted that the subject matter of a Final Audit Report (No. 16/2021-22) was different from the impugned order, but later conceded that the impugned order was for not filing GSTR-3B returns. A preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition due to the availability of a statutory appeal remedy was raised.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned Order-in-Original No. YL0401-41-2023-24, dated 25-10-2023, passed by the First Respondent for the tax period 2018-19, is without jurisdiction and illegal, particularly in light of a prior order dated 23.08.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner for the same period. 2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court, given the existence of a statutory alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned order. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction as a prior order for the same tax period had already been satisfied and had not been revised by any superior authority. They also contended that the order violated principles of natural justice and was contrary to amendments to Section 50 of the CGST/SGST Acts and relevant judgments. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents initially raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition due to the availability of a statutory appeal remedy. They also submitted that the subject matter of a Final Audit Report was different from the impugned order, but later clarified that the impugned order was for non-filing of GSTR-3B returns. The respondents did not explicitly argue on the merits of the jurisdiction challenge beyond the maintainability issue.