M/S Ambika Food Industries Private Limited vs. Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The primary reason for this decision was the existence of a statutory alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court observed that the Petitioner had received a Show Cause Notice, responded to it, and contested the case on merits, indicating that the authority passing the order did not lack jurisdiction, nor was the order passed without affording an opportunity of hearing. The Court considered the Petitioner's contentions regarding the appreciation of their arguments as factual in nature, which are to be dealt with by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority has the power to examine the matter both on facts and on merits. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of, reserving the Petitioner's right to avail the statutory remedy of appeal in accordance with the law.

Facts

M/s Ambika Food Industries Private Limited (Petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original dated July 31, 2023, passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad Commissionerate (Respondent No. 1). The impugned order levied a disputed tax of Rs. 4,68,63,647, along with a penalty of Rs. 4,68,63,647 and unquantified interest. The Petitioner sought a stay on the collection of these amounts. The Petitioner had received a Show Cause Notice on April 12, 2021, responded to it, and contested the case on merits before the authority. The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 is available to the petitioner? (Question of law) 2. Whether the impugned order suffers from lack of jurisdiction or violation of principles of natural justice, thereby justifying invocation of writ jurisdiction? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's arguments: The Petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without proper appreciation of their contentions, implying a potential error in the assessment or procedural irregularity. They sought to bypass the appellate route by directly approaching the High Court. Respondent's arguments: The Respondent argued that the Petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. They also contended that the authority passing the order had jurisdiction and that the Petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing, as evidenced by their response to the Show Cause Notice and contestation on merits. The Respondent relied on the existence of these statutory remedies and the procedural fairness in the adjudication process.