Bharati Sikaria vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The primary reasoning was that alternative remedies by way of an appeal were available to the petitioner. The Court found that the petitioner should have approached the appellate authority instead of filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While the petitioner raised the issue of an unconsidered rectification application, the Court did not delve into the merits of whether such an application should have been considered or the specific provisions of law applicable to rectification. The Court's decision was based solely on the existence of an alternative appellate remedy. No specific provision of the CGST Act or Rules was discussed in relation to the rectification application itself.

Facts

The petitioner, Bharati Sikaria, filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging an adjudication order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Systems), Kolkata South CGST & CX Commissionerate. The petitioner contended that the order contained clerical mistakes and that an application for rectification of these mistakes had been filed but not considered. No one appeared on behalf of the CGST authorities. The Union of India, represented by learned counsel, argued that there was no provision for considering a rectification application under the Service Tax Act and that the petitioner should have filed an appeal against the order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Assistant Commissioner (Systems), Kolkata South CGST & CX Commissionerate, was obligated to consider the petitioner's application for rectification of clerical mistakes in the adjudication order, and if so, under which provision of law? 2. Whether the petitioner's writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was maintainable, given the existence of alternative remedies? Contentions of the Petitioner: The petitioner argued that there were clerical mistakes in the adjudication order and that an application for rectification had been made to the issuing authority, which remained unconsidered. The petitioner sought consideration of this rectification application. Contentions of the Revenue (Union of India): The Union of India contended that there was no specific provision within the Service Tax Act that allowed for the consideration of a rectification application. They argued that the appropriate course of action for the petitioner was to file an appeal against the adjudication order.