Janhabi Jiban Biswas vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central Tax CGST And Cx Kolkata North Commissionerate And Ors

Held

The Court held that it was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The reasoning was that the petitioner had participated in the adjudication proceedings, received an opportunity for personal hearing, and filed written submissions. Furthermore, a statutory appeal had already been filed against the impugned order. The Court found no violation of the principles of natural justice, as the authority had provided an effective opportunity of hearing and considered the petitioner's written submissions. The Court was not convinced by the petitioner's argument that the writ petition should be entertained despite the pending appeal and non-compliance with pre-deposit, especially when the petitioner admitted to deliberately not making the pre-deposit. However, on the petitioner's prayer, the Court extended the time to make the pre-deposit by four weeks. If the pre-deposit was made within this extended period, the revenue was directed not to take coercive action for recovery. The appellate authority was directed to expeditiously proceed with the appeal upon compliance with the pre-deposit. The ratio is that a writ petition is generally not maintainable when an effective alternative remedy, such as a statutory appeal, is available and has been availed, especially when the petitioner has participated in the original proceedings and the appellate remedy is being circumvented.

Facts

The petitioner, Janhabi Jiban Biswas, filed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order dated December 23, 2021, passed by the Joint Commissioner, North CGST & CX, Kolkata. This order followed a show-cause notice issued on April 8, 2019. The petitioner participated in the adjudication proceedings, attended a personal hearing on November 30, 2021, and filed written submissions. The petitioner contended that the show-cause notice was issued in contravention of Sections 66B, 68, and 70 of the Finance Act, 1994, and that these provisions were not applicable due to the nature of the transaction and the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) provisions, specifically Section 26(1)(e) and Section 51 of the SEZ Act, 2005, and Rule 22 of SEZ Rules. The petitioner admitted to having filed a statutory appeal against the impugned order but argued for the writ court to entertain the petition due to alleged improprieties in the appeal filing and non-compliance with pre-deposit requirements.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when a statutory appeal has already been filed against the impugned adjudication order, and the petitioner has not made the pre-deposit required for the appeal. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that despite filing an appeal, the writ petition should be entertained because the appeal was not proper or regular, and the pre-deposit was not made deliberately. The petitioner sought to have the writ court ignore the pending appeal and proceed with the writ petition. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents (Union of India and others) did not explicitly record arguments against entertaining the writ petition, but the Court's decision implies a reliance on the existence of the statutory appeal mechanism. The judgment notes the petitioner's participation in the proceedings and the filing of the appeal.