Ramsarup Industries Limited And Anr vs. Union Of INDIA And Anr

Facts

The petitioner, Ramsarup Industries Ltd. & Anr., has filed a writ petition challenging an impugned order dated November 21, 2023, passed by the CGST authority. The petitioner contends that this order is appellable under the statute. The judgment notes that the petitioner was provided with several opportunities for hearing, including personal hearings on three dates at their convenience, which they failed to avail. The petitioner is now seeking to present their case before the High Court for the first time through this writ petition, having not utilized the opportunities provided by the original authority.

Held

The Court held that it was not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The reasoning was based on the fact that the impugned order was an appellable order under the statute. Furthermore, the petitioner had been given several opportunities for hearing, including personal hearings on three dates, which they chose not to avail. The Court found that the petitioner was now attempting to make out a case before the writ court for the first time, having failed to do so before the original authority. The ratio decidendi is that a writ court should not entertain a challenge to an appellable order when the petitioner has not exhausted the statutory remedy and has also failed to participate in the opportunities for hearing provided by the adjudicating authority. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain a challenge against an order that is appellable under the GST statute, when the petitioner has failed to avail the opportunities for personal hearing before the concerned authority? The petitioner's argument is implicitly that the impugned order is erroneous and therefore warrants High Court intervention. The revenue's (CGST and Union of India) contention, as reflected in the court's reasoning, is that the petitioner has not exhausted the statutory remedy of appeal and has also failed to participate in the opportunities for hearing provided by the adjudicating authority. The revenue would likely argue that the writ petition is premature and an abuse of process, given the availability of an appellate mechanism and the petitioner's non-compliance with procedural requirements.