Century Products vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Held

The Court held that while it has the power to set aside orders passed during the pendency of a writ petition even with an alternative remedy available, this was not a case warranting such interference. The Court found no jurisdictional error in the adjudicating authority's order. The very act of the petitioner applying to the authority for processing the refund demonstrated that the authority had the jurisdiction to both allow and reject the request. Therefore, the Court declined to interfere with the order on the basis of an application. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations, and the application (CAN 1 of 2025) was disposed of without passing an order, as the impugned order was appealable. The petitioner was advised to challenge the order dated October 31, 2025, before the appellate authority. The Court explicitly stated it had not gone into the merits of the refund application.

Facts

The petitioner, Century Products, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to process their refund application dated June 6, 2025, for ₹2,70,934 (CGST and SGST) for the tax period of March 2025, along with applicable interest. During the pendency of the writ petition, GST authorities issued a show-cause notice on September 9, 2025. The petitioner replied on September 16, 2025, and an order was passed by the adjudicating authority on October 31, 2025, rejecting the refund request. The petitioner then filed an application (CAN 1 of 2025) to challenge this rejection order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the adjudicating authority's order dated October 31, 2025, rejecting the refund application, suffers from jurisdictional error, thereby warranting interference by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 107 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that the show-cause notice and the subsequent rejection order suffered from jurisdictional errors. Revenue's argument: The State respondents argued that the petitioner should not be allowed to challenge the adjudication order via an application within the writ petition, as the original writ sought expeditious disposal of the refund application, which had been done. They asserted that the petitioner has a statutory remedy before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017.