Asif Iqbal vs. Superintendent CGST And Cx Circle Iii And Ors

Facts

The appellant, Asif Iqbal, filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging an order passed by the adjudicating authority. The learned Single Judge declined to entertain the writ petition, citing the availability of an alternative remedy. The appellant then preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court against the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal involved disputed questions of fact, which the Division Bench noted could not be decided in a writ petition based on affidavits. The revenue was represented by the Superintendent of CGST & CX, Range-III, Shibpur Division, Howrah CGST Commissionerate & Ors.

Held

The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the order of the learned Single Judge. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the Single Judge's view that the writ petition should not be entertained due to the availability of an alternative remedy. The reasoning was that the matter involved disputed questions of fact, which are not suitable for determination in a writ petition based solely on affidavits. The Court's ratio decidendi is that when a case involves complex factual disputes, the appropriate forum for adjudication is the statutory appellate authority, not the writ court. The Court directed the appellant to prefer an appeal before the statutory appellate authority within 60 days of receiving the server copy of the order. The appellate authority was instructed to entertain the appeal without rejecting it on the grounds of limitation, provided the statutory conditions for filing the appeal are met.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Single Judge was correct in declining to entertain the writ petition on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy, given that the matter involved disputed questions of fact. The appellant, through their counsel, implicitly argued that the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an alternative remedy, likely contending that the facts were not so disputed as to preclude writ jurisdiction or that exceptional circumstances warranted intervention. The revenue, represented by its counsel, contended that the learned Single Judge's decision was correct because the presence of disputed questions of fact necessitates an appeal before the statutory appellate authority, which is equipped to examine evidence and facts. The revenue likely relied on the principle that writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for statutory remedies when factual adjudication is required.