Dhanbad Fuels Private Limited vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Bolpur Commissionerate And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Dhanbad Fuels Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 24th September 2024, passed by the adjudicating authority under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The respondents, represented by the Commissioner of CGST & CX, Bolpur Commissionerate, argued that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy. The order under challenge pertains to a matter where the respondents invoked the extended period of limitation. The writ petition had been pending before the High Court for some time.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy in the form of an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Consequently, the Court decided not to entertain the writ petition on the ground of the availability of this alternative remedy. The Court reasoned that it would be prudent to permit the petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal first. Given the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court, the Court directed that if the petitioner approaches the Appellate Tribunal within four weeks from the date of the order, the Appellate Tribunal should hear and dispose of the appeal on merits, subject to the petitioner filing an appropriate application for condonation of delay. The Court did not decide the merits of the case or the validity of the order dated 24th September 2024.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court, or if the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy available under the Central Excise Act, 1944? The petitioner, Dhanbad Fuels Private Limited, sought to challenge an order passed by the adjudicating authority. The respondents, represented by the Commissioner of CGST & CX, Bolpur Commissionerate, contended that the petitioner ought to pursue the statutory appeal mechanism available to them. The respondents argued that the existence of an alternative remedy barred the High Court from entertaining the writ petition. The petitioner did not explicitly argue against the existence of an alternative remedy, but rather sought relief from the High Court.
Sections Cited
Section 35B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
M/L 28 28.04.2025 sb Ct 5
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURI ICTION APPELLATE SIDE
WPA 1679 of 2025
Dhanbad Fuels Private Limited Versus The Commissioner of CGST & CX, Bolpur Commissionerate & Ors.
Mr. Arnab Chakraborty
Mr. Aniket Chaudhury
… For the petitioner
Ms. Manasi Mukherjee
Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee
… For the respondents.
Challenging the order dated 24th September, 2024 passed by the adjudicating authority under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act’), the instant writ petition has been filed. It also appears that the respondents had invoked the extended period of limitation.
Ms. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy available and as such, this Court ought not to entertain the writ petition.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and noting that the petitioner has an alternative remedy in the form of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under
2 Section 35B of the said Act, I am of the view, in the given facts it would be prudent to permit the petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal at the first instance.
Since, this Court is not entertaining the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy and taking note of the fact that the writ petition is pending before this Court for quite some time, I am of the view, in the event, the petitioner approaches the Appellate Tribunal within four weeks from date, the Appellate Tribunal, having regard to the pendency of the writ petition before this Court and the peculiar facts of this case, would hear out and dispose of the appeal on merits subject to the petitioner filing an appropriate application seeking condonation of delay.
With the above observations and directions the writ petition is disposed of. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.