M/S B.A. Constructions A Proprietorsihp Firm Having Its Place Of Business vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the issue raised in the present petition could be considered and dealt with more effectively by an authority constituted under the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned orders dated 27.11.2020 and 22.7.2021 before the Appellate Authority. The Court further directed the Appellate Authority to consider and decide the appeal on merits, in accordance with law, expeditiously, and preferably within three months, after complying with the principles of natural justice. Crucially, the Court ruled that the issue of limitation shall not impede the Appellate Authority's consideration of the appeal on merits. The respondents undertook not to take coercive action against the petitioner until the appeal is filed. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving all questions of fact and law open for adjudication by the Appellate Authority.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s B.A. Constructions, a proprietorship firm, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central GST & CX, Gaya Division, and the Superintendent, CGST & CEX Range, Sasaram. The dispute pertains to the financial year 2013-2014. The petitioner sought relief from the High Court regarding these orders. The respondents are the Union of India through the Commissioner, Department of Central GST and CX, Bihar, the Assistant Commissioner, and the Superintendent.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain the writ petition directly, or if the petitioner should first exhaust alternative remedies available under the GST Act. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner approached the High Court seeking redressal of grievances against the impugned orders. Revenue's contention: The revenue, through its counsel, argued that the issue raised in the petition could be more effectively considered and dealt with by an authority constituted under the provisions of the Act. This implies that the petitioner should pursue the statutory appellate mechanism rather than invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court at this stage.