Uno Minda Limited Formerly M/S Minda Distribution And Services Limited vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Uno Minda Limited, formerly M/s Minda Distribution and Services Limited, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated 22.04.2024 passed by respondent no. 4 under Section 73 of the CGST/DGST Act. This order pertained to the tax period April 2018 to March 2019. The petitioner also raised a grievance regarding their inability to access relevant records, including e-way bills, from the GST portal. The respondents include the Union of India and the GNCTD.

Held

The Court held that it was not apposite to entertain the present writ petition, as the petitioner had an efficacious remedy available under Section 107 of the CGST Act/DGST Act to challenge the order dated 22.04.2024. The Court directed the respondents to provide the petitioner with details of e-way bills and underlying invoices, as mentioned in the Show Cause Notice and forming the basis of the impugned order, within two weeks. The Court further clarified that if the petitioner prefers an appeal within four weeks from the date of the order, the Appellate Authority would consider it without being influenced by any delay. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts should generally relegate parties to statutory remedies when they are available and efficacious, unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/DGST Act is available to the petitioner against the impugned order dated 22.04.2024 passed by respondent no. 4. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, by filing the writ petition, implicitly sought to bypass the appellate route. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the petitioner on why the writ petition should be entertained despite the availability of an appeal. Respondents' contention: The respondents, represented by Mr. Piyush Beriwal and Ms. Ojasvi for R-1, and Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, ASC with Mr. Vivek Kumr Singh, Mr. Naved Ahmed and Mr. Shubham Kumar for R-2 to 4 (GNCTD), argued that an efficacious remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act/DGST Act was available to the petitioner, making the writ petition inappropriate.