Debasish Ghosh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Held
The Court held that the grounds canvassed before it in the appeal were essentially disputed questions of fact. It found that the statutory remedy of appeal available to the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) was an effective and efficacious remedy. Therefore, the Court agreed with the view of the learned Single Bench that the appellant ought to have preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) instead of filing a writ petition. The Court reasoned that bypassing such a statutory remedy is not justified. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the order of the learned Single Bench was affirmed. The appellant was granted liberty to file the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) within 30 days from the receipt of the order, with a direction that it should not be rejected on the ground of limitation but considered in accordance with law.
Facts
The appellant, Debasish Ghosh, filed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order passed by the Joint Commissioner, Howrah CGST & CX Commissionerate. The learned Single Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that an alternate statutory remedy was available before the Commissioner (Appeals). Aggrieved by this dismissal, the writ petitioner filed the present intra-Court appeal. The appeal was filed with a delay of 14 days, for which an application for condonation of delay was filed and allowed. The core of the dispute revolves around the appellant's attempt to bypass the statutory appeal mechanism.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petitioner was justified in bypassing the statutory remedy of appeal available before the Commissioner (Appeals) by filing a writ petition directly challenging the adjudication order passed by the Joint Commissioner, Howrah CGST & CX Commissionerate. Arguments for the appellant: The appellant contended that the grounds raised in the appeal involved disputed questions of fact that necessitated High Court intervention. Arguments for the revenue (Union of India): The revenue argued that the available appeal remedy before the Commissioner (Appeals) was not only an effective but also an efficacious remedy, and therefore, the appellant should not be permitted to bypass it. They relied on the principle that statutory remedies must be exhausted before approaching the writ court.
Sections Cited
Not explicitly mentioned in the judgment provided.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) Re: I.A. No.CAN 1 of 2022
This is an application to condone the delay of 14 days in filing the instant appeal.
We have heard Ms. Sweta Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant duly assisted by Mr. Arup Sarkar, learned Advocate and Mr. Uday Sankar Bhattacharya, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the respondents duly assisted by Mr. Tapan Bhanja, learned junior standing counsel for the respondents.
We are satisfied with the reasons assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the application. Accordingly, the delay in filing the instant appeal is condone
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.