Nandini Shroff vs. Uniojr Of INDIA And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Nandini Shroff, filed a writ petition challenging an order in original dated December 27, 2023, passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act by the CGST authorities. The petitioner alleged that her user ID and password were fraudulently changed by someone for wrongful gain, leading to a criminal issue involving fraud and misuse of taxpayer credentials. The petitioner contended that the adjudication order should have been passed after a full-fledged investigation into these criminal allegations. The petitioner participated in the adjudication proceedings and did not allege denial of a hearing, nor did they claim the order was non-speaking, contrary to law, procedurally irregular, or passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable on the ground of alternative remedy. The Court found that the impugned order was an appellable order under the CGST Act, and the petitioner had participated in the adjudication proceedings without alleging any denial of opportunity, procedural irregularity, or lack of jurisdiction. The Court observed that the petitioner's allegations were purely criminal in nature, involving fraud and misuse of credentials, which are not within the ambit and scope of constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The Court distinguished the precedent relied upon by the petitioner, K. S. Jagannathan, stating it was factually and legally distinguishable as it did not involve allegations of criminal offenses. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. However, the Court clarified that this dismissal would not preclude the petitioner from seeking remedies before any other forum in accordance with law concerning the criminal nature of the allegations.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can entertain a writ petition challenging an adjudication order passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act when the petitioner alleges criminal fraud and misuse of credentials, and an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the High Court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction, citing the Supreme Court case of The Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Gian Prakash, New Delhi & Anr. – Vs – K. S. Jagannathan & Anr. (AIR 1987 Supreme Court 537), to address the criminal nature of the allegations and the fraudulent misuse of their login credentials. Revenue/State's contention: The State and Union of India, through their respective counsel, implicitly argued that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy and the criminal nature of the allegations, which are outside the scope of writ jurisdiction. They did not present specific arguments beyond the procedural maintainability of the writ petition.