Sujit Kumar Gauand vs. Suptd. Of CGST And Cx, Range-Ii, Dankuni Division Howrah And Ors

Facts

The appellant, Sujit Kumar Gauand, challenged an adjudication order. The learned writ court rejected this challenge, directing the appellant to avail the alternate remedy. The appellant then filed an appeal before the High Court against the writ court's order. The revenue authorities were the respondents. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history involves an initial adjudication order, a writ petition that was dismissed for not availing alternate remedy, and the present appeal against the writ court's dismissal.

Held

The High Court found no error in the learned writ court's observation that the appellant should have availed the alternate remedy. Consequently, the High Court affirmed the order passed in the writ petition. However, to avoid foreclosing the appellant's rights, liberty was granted to the appellant to file a statutory appeal before the appellate authority. If such an appeal is filed within 60 days from the receipt of the server copy of the High Court's order, the appellate authority is directed to entertain it and not reject it on the ground of limitation. The Court explicitly stated that it had not gone into the merits of the matter, leaving all questions of fact and law open for the appellant to raise before the appellate authority. The ratio is that while upholding the principle of alternate remedy, High Courts can grant liberty to file statutory appeals beyond the prescribed limitation period in appropriate circumstances, without prejudice to the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned writ court erred in rejecting the writ petition on the ground that the appellant should have availed the alternate remedy, thereby precluding the appellant from challenging the adjudication order. Petitioner's contention: The appellant argued that the writ court's rejection of the challenge to the adjudication order on the sole ground of alternate remedy was erroneous, and that the court should have considered the merits of the case. Revenue's contention: The revenue authorities contended that the writ court's decision to direct the appellant to avail the alternate remedy was correct, as statutory appeals are the appropriate forum for such challenges. The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the revenue on specific provisions or precedents, but implies their support for the alternate remedy route.