Agarwal Steel PVT. LTD. vs. Supdt. Of Central Tax, Range-Iii, Bally-I, Div, Howrah CGST And Central Exise Comm. And Ors.
Facts
The petitioner, Agarwal Steel Private Limited, has challenged an adjudication order dated November 2, 2023, passed by the Superintendent of Central Tax, Range – III, Bally – I, Division, Howrah CGST & Central Excise Commissionerate. The petitioner sought to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order was passed after providing the petitioner with an opportunity for personal hearing and considering their reply. The revenue authorities are the respondents. No specific tax period or amount in dispute is mentioned in the judgment.
Held
The High Court held that it would not invoke its constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the present case. The Court found that the impugned adjudication order dated November 2, 2023, is an appellable order under the statute. Furthermore, the Court observed that the order contains elaborate reasoning, was passed after affording the petitioner an opportunity for personal hearing and considering their reply, and is neither in violation of the principles of natural justice, nor a non-speaking order, nor passed without jurisdiction. Therefore, the availability of an alternative statutory remedy by way of appeal is a sufficient ground to dismiss the writ petition. The Court did not decide on the merits of the adjudication order itself.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an adjudication order when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available under the GST Act? The petitioner argued for the invocation of the writ jurisdiction, implying that the alternative remedy might be inadequate or that the order suffers from fundamental flaws. The respondent authorities contended that the existence of an alternative appellate remedy under the statute bars the High Court from exercising its writ jurisdiction. They highlighted that the impugned order was passed after due process, including personal hearing and consideration of the petitioner's reply, and was neither non-speaking nor passed without jurisdiction, nor in violation of natural justice.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
WPA 7426 OF 2024 02.04.2024
Sl no. 38
Agarwal Steel Private Limited Ct no. 2
- Vs - P.M.
The Superintendent of Central Tax, Range – III,
Bally – I, Division, Howrah CGST & Central
Excise Commissionerate & Ors.
Mr. Sandip Choraria Mr. Rishav Manna
… for the petitioner
Mr. K. K. Maiti,
Mr. Tapan Bhanja
... for respondent authorities.
Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties.
By this writ petition petitioner has challenged the impugned adjudication order dated 2nd November, 2023 which is an appellable order under the statute and furthermore on perusal of the aforesaid impugned order I find that the same contains elaborate reason and that the impugned order was passed after giving opportunity of personal hearing and after considering the petitioner’s reply and the impugned order is neither in violation of principle of natural justice nor the same is non- speaking order, nor the order is without juri iction and as such I am not inclined to invoke constitutional writ juri iction of this Court under Articl
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.