Ankit Anand vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the writ application was not maintainable. The reasoning was based on the contention of the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Department, which the Court found to be correct. The Court noted that the petitioner had not responded to the show-cause notice, and the competent authority had already confirmed the demand as per the show-cause notice. Crucially, the order in original passed by the competent authority had not been challenged in the writ application. Therefore, the Court dismissed the writ application, but granted liberty to the petitioner to seek his remedy as advised in accordance with law. The principle derived is that writ petitions are generally not entertained when a statutory alternative remedy, such as an appeal, is available and has not been availed or challenged.

Facts

The petitioner, Ankit Anand, proprietor of M/S Anand Contraction, challenged a show-cause notice and a subsequent communication from the Superintendent, Central GST and Central Excise, Khagaria Range. The communication informed the petitioner that Service Tax and cess amounting to Rs. 43,68,878/-, penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 of Rs. 43,68,878/-, and penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 of Rs. 30,000/-, along with interest, had been confirmed. The petitioner was asked to provide the case status and confirm if an appeal had been filed before the Commissioner (Appeal), Patna. Failure to deposit the amounts would lead to recovery proceedings under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 79 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ application is maintainable when the petitioner has not challenged the order in original passed by the competent authority, as argued by the revenue. 2. Whether the petitioner has exhausted the available alternative remedies, specifically the remedy of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal), Patna, as suggested by the revenue. The petitioner's side argued that the writ application was the appropriate remedy. The revenue contended that the petitioner had not responded to the show-cause notice, leading to the confirmation of the demand by the competent authority. The revenue further argued that the order in original, which confirmed the demand, had not been challenged in the writ petition, and therefore, the writ application was not maintainable. The revenue also implicitly suggested that the petitioner should pursue the statutory remedy of appeal.