M/S Rittik Clinic And Laboratory vs. Deputy Commissioner Of CGST And Cs, Joka Division And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Rittik Clinic and Laboratory, challenged an adjudication order dated August 9, 2023, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of CGST & CX, Joka Division, Kolkata South Commissionerate. This is the second round of litigation. Previously, the petitioner filed WPA 1418 of 2024, arguing their representation was not considered before the initial adjudication order. That writ petition was disposed of on February 6, 2024, directing the respondent authority to consider the representation. The adjudicating authority subsequently passed the current impugned order after providing a hearing and considering the representation. The petitioner contended that the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and specific provisions of law, and was non-speaking.

Held

The Court held that the impugned adjudication order, dated August 9, 2023, was not passed in violation of the principles of natural justice or contrary to any specific provisions of law, nor was it a non-speaking order. The Court noted that the order was passed after the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing and their representation was considered, in compliance with a previous High Court order. Therefore, the Court was of the view that the impugned order, being an appellable order under the statute, could not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction due to the availability of an alternative remedy. The Court did not grant any relief to the petitioner in the writ petition but granted liberty to file a statutory appeal within four weeks from the date of the order. The respondent authority was directed to provide necessary information to the petitioner for the purpose of making the pre-deposit for the appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned adjudication order, passed after considering the petitioner's representation and providing an opportunity of hearing, can be interfered with by this Court in its writ jurisdiction, given the availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned adjudication order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to specific provisions of law, and that it was a non-speaking order. They sought relief from the High Court directly. Revenue/State's Arguments: The respondent authorities contended that the impugned order was passed after complying with the previous High Court order, giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and considering their representation. They argued that the order was not passed in violation of natural justice or law and that an alternative remedy by way of statutory appeal was available.