K.Seshagiri Rao And Co vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Facts
The petitioner, K. Seshagiri Rao & Co., filed a writ petition (WPA 7531 of 2024) before the High Court challenging an adjudication order in original dated December 8, 2023. This order was passed by a CGST authority. The petitioner invoked the constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, bypassing the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. The Court noted that the impugned order was not passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, was not a non-speaking order, and was not contrary to any specific statutory provisions or passed by an authority lacking inherent jurisdiction.
Held
The Court held that it was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The reasoning was based on the fact that the impugned adjudication order dated December 8, 2023, was an appellable order under the statute. The petitioner had not availed the alternative remedy of statutory appeal. Furthermore, the Court found that the order was not passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, was not a non-speaking order, was not contrary to any specific statutory provisions, and was not passed by an authority lacking inherent jurisdiction. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when an effective alternative remedy exists, unless there are exceptional circumstances which were not found to be present in this case.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available and has not been availed by the petitioner? The petitioner's contention, implied by filing the writ petition, is that the circumstances warranting writ jurisdiction exist, possibly due to fundamental flaws in the adjudication order or the process. The revenue's contention, as indicated by the Court's dismissal, is that the availability of a statutory appeal is a bar to entertaining a writ petition, especially when the order does not suffer from patent illegality, violation of natural justice, or jurisdictional error.
Sections Cited
Article 226
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
WPA 7531 OF 2024 02.04.2024
Sl no. 43
K. Seshagiri Rao & Co. Ct no. 2
- Vs - P.M.
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Rishi Raju Ms. Shreya Mundhra
… for the petitioner
Mr. Kaushik Dey,
Mr. Tapan Bhanja
... for CGST authorities.
Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties.
By this writ petition petitioner has challenged the impugned adjudication order in original dated 08.12.2023 which is an appellable order under the statute and petitioner without availing the alternative remedy by way of statutory appeal intends to invoke constitutional writ juri iction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
On perusal of the impugned order I find that the same has been passed neither in violation of principle of natural justice by denying the petitioner any opportunity of hearing nor the order is a non- speaking order, nor is contrary to any specific provisions of any statute, nor the order has been passed by the authority having inherent lack of juri iction.
2
In view of the discussion made above, I am not inclined
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.