M/S Eris Techno Management PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax And Central Excise, Chandannagar Division And Ors.

Held

The Court held that it was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The reasoning was based on the availability of an alternative statutory remedy by way of appeal against the impugned adjudication order. The Court noted that the petitioner had participated in the proceedings after receiving the show-cause notice and had been afforded an opportunity for a personal hearing before the final adjudication order was passed. Given these facts and the existence of a clear appellate route, the Court found no compelling reason to exercise its writ jurisdiction. The ratio decidendi is that writ petitions challenging orders for which statutory appeals are provided, especially after the petitioner has participated in the original proceedings, are generally not maintainable. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Eris Techno Management Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order dated April 19, 2023, passed under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. This order was based on a show-cause notice dated April 6, 2021. The petitioner had been afforded an opportunity for a personal hearing and participated in the proceedings before the adjudication order was passed. The petitioner had responded to the show-cause notice issued over two years prior and engaged in the subsequent proceedings. However, after the adverse adjudication order, the petitioner sought to challenge the show-cause notice itself, rather than pursuing the statutory appeal remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an adjudication order passed under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, when a statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner, by filing a writ petition, implicitly argues that the adjudication order is flawed and that the High Court should intervene. The specific grounds for challenging the show-cause notice or the subsequent adjudication order are not detailed in the judgment, but the act of filing a writ petition suggests a contention that the process or the order itself is legally unsustainable, warranting extraordinary jurisdiction. Revenue/State's Argument: The respondents, represented by the Union of India and CGST authorities, argued that a statutory alternative remedy by way of appeal is available to the petitioner against the impugned adjudication order. They contended that the petitioner participated in the adjudication proceedings after receiving the show-cause notice and therefore should be relegated to the appellate forum.