Faridabad Marketing vs. The Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax, Delhi West

Facts

The petitioners, Faridabad Marketing, Om Sai Traders, and Goyal Agencies, filed writ petitions before the Delhi High Court. They challenged orders passed by the Appellate Authority, which were themselves appeals against a common order-in-original dated March 10, 2023. The respondent in all cases was the Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, Delhi (West). The petitions were filed in 2024. The core of the dispute appears to revolve around questions of fact, as stated by the Court.

Held

The Delhi High Court held that it was not apposite to entertain the present writ petitions. The Court noted that the controversy involved questions of fact and that the petitioners had an effective alternate remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act, 2017) and the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (DGST Act, 2017). Furthermore, the Court took judicial notice of the notification dated July 31, 2024, establishing the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) with effect from September 1, 2024. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petitions, leaving it open for the petitioners to avail their statutory remedies. The ratio decidendi is that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when an equally efficacious alternative remedy exists, especially when a specialized tribunal is functional.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain writ petitions when an effective alternate statutory remedy of appeal is available under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/DGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners approached the High Court by way of writ petitions, implicitly arguing that the circumstances warranted direct intervention by the High Court, possibly due to the nature of the dispute or perceived deficiencies in the appellate process. However, the judgment does not explicitly record their arguments for entertaining the writ petitions. Respondent's Contention: The respondent, represented by the Commissioner Central Goods and Services Tax, likely argued that the existence of an effective alternate remedy under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017, and the establishment of the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), rendered the writ petitions infructuous or inappropriate for the High Court's consideration. The judgment does not detail specific arguments from the respondent beyond the implication of available remedies.