M/S. Deb Ei Shipping Agency Private Limited vs. State Of West Bengal And Anr.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Deb EI Shipping Agency Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the proper officer under Section 74(9) of the WB GST/CGST Act, 2017, dated October 30, 2023. The State, represented by the learned Additional Government Pleader, submitted that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the said Act. The Court considered this submission and the fact that the petitioner had not made out a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy in the form of an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the WB GST/CGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The ratio decidendi is that statutory appellate remedies must be exhausted before approaching the High Court under its writ jurisdiction, unless exceptional circumstances warrant otherwise. The Court directed that the petitioner should approach the Appellate Authority within three weeks from the date of the order. The Appellate Authority was directed to condone the delay in filing the appeal, considering the pendency of the writ petition, and to hear the appeal on merits expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks from the communication of the order, subject to the petitioner complying with other formalities.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy available under Section 107 of the WB GST/CGST Act, 2017, against the order passed by the proper officer under Section 74(9) of the said Act, thereby precluding the High Court from exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner, by filing a writ petition, implicitly argued that the alternative remedy was not efficacious or that there were grounds for direct High Court intervention. However, the judgment does not explicitly record the petitioner's arguments regarding the efficacy of the alternative remedy or any specific grounds for invoking writ jurisdiction. Revenue's Contention: The respondents (State of West Bengal and another) contended that the petitioner possesses an alternative efficacious remedy in the form of an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the said Act, and therefore, the writ petition should not be entertained.