M/S Eastern Micropor Private Limited vs. Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax, Howrah CGST And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable. The Court reasoned that an order passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, is appealable before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the said Act. The Court noted that the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after the adjudication order was passed, and not at the stage of the show-cause notice. Citing a coordinate bench's decision in UBS Exports International Pvt. Ltd. &Anr. vs. The State of West Bengal &Ors., where a similar fact situation led to the refusal of writ jurisdiction due to a belated approach and the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy, the Court found no reason to deviate from that course. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion in entertaining the writ petition. The operative direction was that the dismissal of the writ petition would not prevent the petitioner from approaching the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, in accordance with law.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Eastern Micropor Private Limited, assails an order in original dated December 20, 2024, passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, by the Additional Commissioner of Central Tax, Howrah CGST. The petitioner contends that the proceeding suffers from jurisdictional errors due to the show-cause notice being issued by clubbing several tax periods, spanning from financial year 2017-2018 to 2022-2023. The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India after the adjudication order was passed. The Court noted a similar fact situation in the case of UBS Exports International Pvt. Ltd. &Anr. vs. The State of West Bengal &Ors., where the Court refused to entertain a writ petition after the adjudication order and relegated the petitioners to the statutory appellate remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, given the existence of an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, when the petitioner has approached the Court after an order in original has been passed? The petitioner argued that the proceeding suffers from gross jurisdictional errors because the show-cause notice clubbed several tax periods (FY 2017-18 to FY 2022-23), rendering the order passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, invalid. The petitioner sought to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The respondent (CGST Authority) relied on the judgment in UBS Exports International Pvt. Ltd. &Anr. vs. The State of West Bengal &Ors., which held that in similar circumstances, where a writ petition is filed after an adjudication order and an alternative appellate remedy is available, the Court should not exercise its discretion in favour of the writ petitioner due to their belated approach. The respondent contended that the petitioner should avail the statutory appeal mechanism.