Smt. Ranu Banerjee vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Facts

The appellant, Ranu Banerjee, filed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order. The writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Bench on August 7, 2023, on the grounds that an alternate remedy of appeal was available before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The present intra-Court appeal is filed by the writ petitioner against this dismissal order. The appellant sought condonation of a 04-day delay in filing the appeal, which was allowed by the Court. The Court noted that serious disputed questions of fact needed to be examined and that the appellant had responded to summons and had a statement recorded.

Held

The Court held that the reasoning of the learned Single Bench in dismissing the writ petition was perfectly justified. The primary reason for this was the presence of serious disputed questions of fact that required examination. The Court also noted that the appellant had responded to summons and had a statement recorded, indicating that the matter had progressed to a stage where factual adjudication was necessary. Therefore, the Court was of the view that the appellant should pursue the available appellate remedy before the CESTAT. The appeal was dismissed, and the connected application was also disposed of. The appellant was granted 60 days from the receipt of the order to prefer an appeal before the tribunal, with a request to the tribunal to entertain the appeal without reference to limitation if filed within the stipulated period.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Single Bench was justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of an alternate remedy being available before the CESTAT, considering the nature of the dispute and the stage of the proceedings? The appellant argued that the writ petition should have been entertained, implying that the alternate remedy was either not adequate or that exceptional circumstances warranted writ intervention. The appellant had responded to summons and had a statement recorded, suggesting engagement with the process. The revenue, represented by the CGST Authorities and the Union of India, contended that the existence of an alternate appellate remedy before the CESTAT was a sufficient ground for the High Court to decline exercising its writ jurisdiction, especially when disputed questions of fact were involved. They likely relied on the principle that writ petitions are generally not entertained when statutory remedies are available.