M/S. Extent Dservices vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Held

The High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable on the ground that an alternative remedy by way of a statutory appeal was available to the petitioner under the CGST Act. The Court explicitly stated that it would not go into the merits of the impugned order. The dismissal of the writ petition was made conditional on the petitioner's ability to avail the alternative remedy. The Court directed that if the petitioner files an appeal before the appellate authority within two weeks from the date of the order, the appellate authority shall consider and dispose of the appeal on its merits, irrespective of any limitation period. If the petitioner fails to file the appeal within the stipulated time, this order would cease to have effect.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Extent D’Services, filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging an order in original dated February 23, 2022, passed by the CGST authority. The specific details of the order, the tax period, or the amount in dispute were not elaborated in the provided text. The procedural history is limited to the filing of the writ petition before the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before the High Court given the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under the CGST Act. The petitioner, M/s. Extent D’Services, sought to challenge the order in original passed by the CGST authority. The respondent authorities, represented by Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerjee and Ms. Rashmi Bothra, contended that a writ petition was not the appropriate forum due to the existence of a statutory appeal mechanism under the CGST Act. The petitioner's arguments, if any, regarding the maintainability of the writ petition were not recorded.