Rawat Trading vs. Commissioner Of Dgst & Ors.

Held

The Court held that since an efficacious remedy of appeal is available to the Petitioner against the order dated 02.09.2025, the High Court would not entertain the present Writ Petition. The Court reasoned that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and is typically not exercised when statutory remedies are available. The Petitioner was therefore relegated to the remedy of appeal. The Court did not decide on the merits of the Petitioner's application under Section 128A or the applicability of the Amnesty Scheme. The operative direction was to dispose of the Writ Petition by relegating the Petitioner to the appellate remedy.

Facts

The Petitioner, Rawat Trading, filed a Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash an order dated 02.09.2025. This order rejected the Petitioner's application filed under Section 128A of the CGST Act. The Petitioner's counsel acknowledged that an appeal is maintainable against the impugned order. However, the Petitioner's primary objective was to seek waiver of interest and penalty under an Amnesty Scheme introduced by the Department. The Respondent is the Commissioner of DGST and other authorities.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a Writ Petition when an efficacious remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner under the CGST Act? Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner argued that while an appeal is maintainable, their primary aim was to avail benefits under an Amnesty Scheme for waiver of interest and penalty, suggesting a procedural or substantive issue that warranted High Court intervention. Revenue's Argument: The Revenue contended that the availability of an alternative statutory remedy, specifically an appeal, precludes the High Court from exercising its writ jurisdiction. They relied on the principle that writ petitions are generally not entertained when a clear and effective alternative remedy exists.