M/S Technocrat Enterprises vs. The Central Board Indirect Taxes And Customs
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER 14.05.2025 02. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
A preliminary objection is raised by the Senior Standing Counsel for the CGST that the instant writ petition does not deserve to be entertained in view of the order passed by this Bench on 29.04.2025 in W.P.(C) No.10197 of 2025. According to the learned Senior Standing Counsel, the recovery notice dated 14th March, 2025 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Goods & Services Tax & Central Excise, Angul Division was a subject matter of challenge in the aforementioned writ petition on the plea that the Order-in-Original was not served upon the petitioner. While disposing of the said application, this Court accepted the contention of the petitioner returning a categorical finding that the Order-in-Original dated 31st August, 2023 was never served upon the petitioner until 24th April, 2025, on which date the same is served through e-mail and therefore, granted liberty to the petitioner to assail the said order before the appropriate forum available under the statute. It would be profitable and relevant to quote the excerpt from the said order which runs thus:- “5. Since this Court is persuaded that Order-in-Original dated 31st August, 2023 was never served on the petitioner and, therefore, it had no occasion to challenge the demand raised thereof by way of an alternative remedy available under the statute. Order-in Original has been served on 24th April, 2025, via e-mail, which fact is not disputed by the learned Senior Standing Counsel. As submitted by learned counsel, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the said order before appropriate forum within a period of two weeks from today.”
The counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no fetter on the part of the petitioner in challenging the said Order-in-Original dated 31st August, 2023 on several counts, as the writ petition raising the aforesaid questions was pending before this Court. She further submits that there is a glaring infirmity in the said order dated 31st August, 2023, and the alternative remedy is not a complete efficacious remedy available to the petitioner.
We are not impressed with the submissions advanced by the petitioner. On a bare perusal of the observations made in paragraph-5 of the order dated 29.04.2025, as quoted hereinabove, the liberty was granted to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 31st August, 2023 before the appropriate forum as provided in the statute. The aforesaid liberty was necessitated on the submissions advanced before this Court by the petitioner that since the Order-in-Original was not served, there arise no occasion to challenge the same as provided in the statute. A litigant cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate at the same
time. Once a specific stand was taken in the earlier round of litigation that the alternative remedy provided in the statute could not be exhausted and/ or availed of because of the non-service of the order dated 31st August, 2023, it is not open to the said litigant to approach the High Court challenging the selfsame order instead of exhausting the statutory remedy provided in the statute. We are conscious that there is no fetter on the part of the citizen of the country to approach the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution despite the existence of an alternative remedy; yet, the High Court may refuse to exercise such discretion when the alternative remedy is found to be efficacious one. Once the liberty to challenge the said order before the forum provided in the statute was granted in an earlier writ petition, in order to maintain judicial discipline, we do not feel that it is a fit case where the High Court should entertain such a writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman) Judge Aswini
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.