Superintendent Range 1 Kharagpur CGST Division vs. T S Tyre Centre And Ors

Facts

The Superintendent, Range 1, Kharagpur CGST Division (the appellant/department) filed an intra-court appeal against an order passed by the learned Single Bench on July 24, 2023. The Single Bench's order was in a writ petition filed by M/s. T. S. Tyre Centre and Ors. (the respondent/writ petitioners). The writ petition had challenged an order of adjudication dated May 8, 2023. The learned Single Bench had declined to interfere with the adjudication order in the writ proceedings and had directed the writ petitioners to file an appeal before the appellate authority.

Held

The High Court held that the learned Single Bench was correct in declining to interfere with the order of adjudication in a writ proceeding and in relegating the writ petitioners to file an appeal before the appellate authority. The Court observed that the issue of filing an appeal could be taken note of by the appellate authority in the event the writ petitioners filed an appeal, as per the liberty granted by the learned writ court. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the order of the learned Single Bench. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts, in writ jurisdiction, should generally relegate parties to statutory appellate remedies when such remedies are available and adequate, rather than adjudicating on the merits of the underlying orders, unless exceptional circumstances warrant otherwise. The operative direction was that the appeal filed by the department stands dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Single Bench was correct in declining to interfere with the order of adjudication in a writ proceeding and relegating the writ petitioners to file an appeal before the appellate authority, thereby not deciding the merits of the adjudication order. The appellant (department) contended that the question of filing an appeal would not arise in the instant case, implying that the Single Bench should have addressed the merits or that the appeal route was not appropriate. The respondent (writ petitioners) argued that the adjudication order was flawed and should have been quashed by the Single Bench. The judgment does not explicitly state the arguments of the respondent, but their action of filing a writ petition challenging the adjudication order implies they sought relief on merits.