Century Products vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Held

The Court held that while it is not powerless to set aside orders passed during the pendency of a writ petition even with an alternative remedy, this case does not warrant such interference. The Court found no jurisdictional error in the order dated October 31, 2025. The very act of the petitioner applying to the authority for processing the refund indicated that the authority had the jurisdiction to both allow and reject the request. Therefore, the Court was of the view that the petitioner should not challenge the order disposing of the refund application via an application within the writ petition. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations, and the application CAN 1 of 2025 was also disposed of without passing an order, as the impugned order is appealable and no jurisdictional error was found to warrant interference under Article 226. The petitioner was advised to challenge the order before the appellate authority.

Facts

The petitioner, Century Products, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to process its refund application dated June 4, 2025, for ₹ 8,08,256/- (CGST and SGST) for January 2025, along with applicable interest. During the pendency of the writ petition, the GST authorities issued a show-cause notice on September 8, 2025. The petitioner replied on September 16, 2025. Subsequently, an order was passed by the adjudicating authority on October 31, 2025, under Section 54 of the CGST/WBGST Act, rejecting the refund claim. The petitioner then filed an application (CAN 1 of 2025) to challenge this order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated October 31, 2025, passed by the adjudicating authority under Section 54 of the CGST/WBGST Act, rejecting the petitioner's refund application, suffers from a jurisdictional error, warranting interference by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy? Petitioner's contention: The show-cause notice and the subsequent order dated October 31, 2025, suffer from jurisdictional errors. State respondents' contention: The petitioner should not be allowed to challenge the adjudication order by way of an application in the writ petition, as the writ petition was initially filed for expeditious disposal of the refund application, which has now been done. The petitioner has a statutory remedy before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST/WBGST Act.