M/S. Kesoram Industries LTD. vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was misplaced because Section 107 of the Act clearly provides an efficacious alternative remedy to the petitioner by way of an appeal to the appellate authority. It is a settled principle of law that writ jurisdiction should generally not be invoked when such an alternative remedy is available. The Court further observed that the petitioner had approached the High Court to circumvent the requirement of making a statutory deposit under Section 107(6) of the Act before filing an appeal. The Court stated that even if the petitioner believed principles of natural justice were violated, this plea could be raised before the appellate authority. Consequently, the Court was not inclined to invoke its writ jurisdiction.

Facts

The petitioner is aggrieved by two orders dated 25.02.2019 and 28.02.2019, passed by respondent No.2. The first order requested the petitioner to calculate interest on the entire amount, including availed Input Tax Credit (ITC), and penalty under Section 122(iii) of the Goods and Services Tax Act. The second order directed the petitioner to pay this interest, failing which recovery proceedings under Section 79 of the CGST/SGST Act would be initiated. The petitioner's counsel argued that the recovery order was passed without a personal hearing, violating principles of natural justice. Despite the petitioner's reply on 25.03.2019, their bank account was attached on 29.04.2019, leading to the present writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ jurisdiction of this Court can be invoked when an efficacious alternative remedy is available under Section 107 of the Goods and Services Tax Act? The petitioner contended that the principles of natural justice were violated as the orders were passed without providing an opportunity for a personal hearing, justifying the invocation of writ jurisdiction. They also argued that the subsequent attachment of their bank account further necessitated judicial intervention. The revenue or State implicitly argued, through the Court's reasoning, that Section 107 of the Act provides a clear and effective avenue for appeal. They also highlighted that Section 107(6) requires a statutory deposit before filing an appeal, suggesting the petitioner's approach to the High Court was an attempt to circumvent this requirement.