M/S.K.M.S.Agencies vs. The Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging an Order-in-Original dated February 24, 2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise and Service Tax, Medchal Division. The impugned order disallowed Input Tax Credit (ITC) and levied a penalty for the tax period 2020-21, under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as their detailed reply to the show-cause notice was not considered, and the order merely reproduced their reply without assigning any reasons. The respondents contended that the order contained discussions and findings, and any erroneous findings could be challenged before the appellate authority.
Held
The Court held that while writ petitions can be entertained in certain situations despite the availability of an alternative remedy, such as a breach of the principles of natural justice, the petitioner must demonstrate that the order was passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction or that pursuing the alternative remedy would cause palpable injustice. The petitioner did not raise any jurisdictional issue. Furthermore, the Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank and Others, emphasizing that the High Court has discretion to entertain a petition and is not compelled to do so merely because it is maintainable, especially when dealing with recovery of public dues where statutory mechanisms are comprehensive. Since the petitioner has a statutory efficacious alternative remedy, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under the CGST Act, 2017, given the alleged violation of the principles of natural justice? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The writ petition is maintainable because the principles of natural justice were violated, as their reply to the show-cause notice was not considered, and the impugned order lacked proper reasoning. They relied on Supreme Court judgments that permit entertaining writ petitions in cases of violation of natural justice, even with an alternative remedy available. Respondent's contention: The impugned order contains discussions and findings. Even if these are erroneous, they can be challenged before the appellate authority. The availability of an effective alternative remedy bars the entertainment of a writ petition, as per established Supreme Court precedents.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER
: THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL ANI) THE HON,BLE SMT. JUSTICE NBUUT<E YARA WRIT PETITION No.1349L of 20.25 oRDER: (Per tlrc Hon'bte tl@ Actirq Chief Jrtstie Sujog Paul) Sri B-Krishna ReddY' Sri A.Kranthi Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner; ReddY, learned' counsel for for respondent No'l and Sri Dominic Fernandes' learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC' for respondent No'2'
Heard on admission'
This writ petition frled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails the Order-in-Original No'144 12024- 25l GST/ Medchal, dated 24'O2'2025' 4 . Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that although the impugned order is appealable before the competent authority under the statute' this writ petition may be entertained because of violation of principles of naturar justice. To elaborate, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuat" t: " show cause notice issued to the petitioner, the petitione.. hl"d detailed reply. The said reply has not been considered and the 'i,-
2 impugned order contains mere reproduction of the reply filed by , the petitioner. No reasons were assigned by the proper officer.
Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC appearing for respondent No.2 opposed the same and relied on paragraph No.13 to 15.5 of the impugned order to submit that discussions and findings' €rre very much there. Even for the sake of argument, if the discussions and hndings are erroneous, the same can be called in question before the appellate authorit5r.
No other point is pressed by the learned counsel for the \\ parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in contending that in certain situations, despite availability of alternative remedy, the writ petition can be entertained. Breach of principles of natural justice is also one of such eventuality. This was laid down by the Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbail. This judgment of Supreme Court was again I (1998) 8 SCC I
J in U.P. State Spinning Co' I,t,d' v' R'S' Pandey and ,/ Another2 and it was opined as under:- '17. ...But normallg'.the .yq-h^:o"n slwid not entertain *nt'ittiii"iitr,t' n * :Y-" tttat ttere Ls s omet hi ng ^"lJ " i"^*'*"i t' -somethin'l tg otng "yr"f ilffi ':x:n:f.:w;xtrt'y{:'S'#;r=i;x u)rit Wtitinner to fore him to aiol |)"""rt"i aa the statute' ' "" 8. ln the light of this distinction made in R'S'Pandey (supra)' the petitioner was required to show that ttre order was passed by an authority having no juri iction and if the petitioner is relegated to avail the alternative remedy' it will case palpable injustice to it' No juri ictional issue is raised by the petitioner and therefore, in the light of the decision in R'S'Paadey (supra)' we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition' considered g. APart from this' W.P.No.5275 of 2O2l' daLed' O4'O2'2O22' of a,lternative remedy' the writ petition where desPite availabilitY was entertained' The ' t2oos) e scc 264 ' i:o:11 a s.c.tl- .'l t
4 Supreme Court opined that merely because a petition is \ maintainable, it is not necessa_ry to entertain a petition. It is the discretion of the Court to entertain a petition and not a compulsion. The relevalt paragraph reads as under: (Emphasis Supptied) \ \ thus be seen that, this Court ha.s clearlg Letd that the lltgh Court urill ordinarilg not "
It coutd 71 under Article 226 of the the il an elfectiue remcdg is a tailable to person. It ha.s been lrcW that this rule applies urith greater tn m.atters of public other tgpes t toney and. the d.ues of and. other Jinanciat institution s- TTre Court clearly obseraed. tLnt, uhile dealing with the petitions inuolum.g cLnllerge to tLte action taken for recouera of the pubtic dues, etc-, tlte High Court must keep tn mind that the Legislation-s enacted bg Parliament and State Legislatures .fo, recouery of such dues are a code unto th.emselues tnasmuch as tl"ug not onlg contain comprehenstue procedu re for recouery of *e dues but also enwsage constitution of qtasi-judicial bod-ies for redressa/ of the grieuance of any aggrieued person. It has been LeId that, though tLe pouers the High Court under Article of 226 of the Constiht tion are of utid.est amplitude, still the CourLs cannot be obliuious of the ntles of self-imposed restraint euolued by thi.s Court. The Court further held. that thnugh tLe rttle of exhaustion of altematiue remedy ef and not as a rule d.ifficutt to stfll ft is should. enterta.tn a petition tiled. anu neoson uhg the under Article High Court 226 oJ the Constitution. " one
5 lO.Inviewoftheforegoingdiscussion,sincethepetitionerhasa statutory effrcacious arternative remedy, we are not inclined to entertain this writ Petition'
Accordingly' the writ petition is disposed of by reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy available under law. No order as to costs' Miscellaneous Petitions Pending, if any, shatl stand closed' SRINIVASA REDDY TANT REGIS /T// ECTION OFFICER The Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, No Block, Delhi-1
The Asst. Commisslo ner of Central Tax and Central xcise and Service Tax, To,
E \ Medchal Division, Medchal Commtssto nerale, 8-2'77 13, AdithYa Towers, Sri Sai Enclave' Old Bowenpally, Secundera bad - 50001 1'
One CC to S One CC to SR RI. B. KR I. DOMIN ISHNA IC FERNA nEOOV, Advocate NDES, Senior to Co PUCI uncel for CBIC IOPUC] 3
One CC to SRI. A. KRANTI KUMAR REDDY, SC For CG {OPUCI
Two CD CoPies BM GJP
I t . HIGH COURT DATED:0 3tOT t2}2s o "\.- :\\' (' 2 o sEP 2$25 ) ORDER WP.No.13491 of ZO2S DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS I /'"1 ' 2 I
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.