Rajesh Kumar Kar vs. Additional Commissioner(Appeals), CGST, Central Excise And Customs, Bhubaneswar
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER 16.04.2026
Challenging the Order dated 27th January, 2026 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Central Excise & Customs, Bhubaneswar, opposite party No.1, this writ petition has been filed.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Order- in-Original dated 3rd February, 2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Sambalpur-I Division, Sambalpur, opposite party No.2 being passed without proper appreciation of written submission filed opposing demand-cum- show-cause notice dated 29th September, 2023, the petitioner filed application for rectification of order, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 29th July, 2025. 3. The petitioner assailed both the orders before this Court in W.P.(C) No.33624 of 2025. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 9th January, 2026 granting leave to withdraw and pursue grievance before the appropriate forum, which led to filing of appeal. The appeal came to be rejected on 27th January, 2026 with the reason “Delay in submission of appeal”.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order so passed by the appellate authority without giving opportunity of hearing suffers vice of Section 107(8) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Since the order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice, the order warrants interference in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Mr. Mukesh Agarwal, learned Junior Counsel appearing for the opposite parties opposed entertainment of this writ petition against the Order-in-Appeal, as alternative efficacious remedy is available under the statute. He would submit that the appellate authorities are empowered to consider the issue of violation of principles of natural justice.
Heard Mr. Jaish Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mukesh Agarwal, learned Junior Counsel appearing for the opposite parties.
At the outset it may be apposite to observe that the aspect of violation of principles of natural justice can be considered by the Appellate Authority/Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal. Whether the Appellate Authority on the facts and in the circumstances of the case has issued notice to the party concerned before rejecting the Appeal can very well be appreciated on perusal of record by the Tribunal. Therefore, such disputed question of fact is to be left for the appropriate authority to consider. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Radha
Krishan Industries Vrs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2021) 3 SCR 406, held, inter alia, that where an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person, the High Court ought to restrain itself from exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and when a right is created by statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is made clear that this rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion.
In view of such enunciation of principles by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, this Court desists from entertaining this writ petition questioning the legality of the appellate order. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner, if so advised, to approach appropriate forum as available under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rules framed thereunder.
With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition along with the pending Interlocutory Application (s), if any, shall stand dismissed. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman) Judge
MRS/Laxmikant
Reproduced from the public record of the Orissa High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.