Gokul Chatterjee vs. Commissioner, CGST And Cx Kalyani Division And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Gokul Chatterjee, filed a writ petition challenging a de novo adjudication order dated March 8, 2024, passed by the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner CGST & CX, Kalyani Division. This order followed a previous adjudication order dated March 18, 2021. The petitioner had appealed the original order, and the appellate authority, by order dated September 1, 2023, had remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision. The petitioner contended that the adjudicating authority failed to consider the appellate authority's observations in the fresh order, leading to a repetitive process. The revenue, represented by Mr. Prabir Bhowmick and Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, argued that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy in the form of an appeal and should not be permitted to approach the High Court by way of a writ petition without exhausting this remedy. The Court reasoned that the statutory appeal mechanism is designed to address such grievances. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. However, the Court provided a direction that if the petitioner approaches the appellate authority within one month from the date of the order, the appellate authority shall hear and dispose of the appeal on merits expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks of communication. The Court also noted that the petitioner had already made the required pre-deposit for the previous appeal, and therefore, no further pre-deposit would be necessary for preferring this appeal. The Court did not decide on the merits of the de novo adjudication order itself.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, having an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal, should be permitted to approach the High Court by way of a writ petition without exhausting such remedy, as per the principles governing writ jurisdiction? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the adjudicating authority had not properly considered the observations of the appellate authority in the de novo adjudication order, suggesting a potential for repeated appeals and a failure to resolve the dispute effectively. The petitioner implied that the current writ petition was necessary due to this perceived procedural flaw. Revenue's contention: The revenue contended that the petitioner possessed an efficacious alternative remedy in the form of an appeal against the impugned adjudication order and therefore should be relegated to that forum.