The Joint Commissioner vs. S.Chidambara Karthikeyan

Facts

The Joint Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise (appellant) filed a writ appeal challenging an order dated 24.06.2024 by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in WP(MD) No.15346/2021. The original writ petition was filed by S. Chidambara Karthikeyan (respondent) against an order dated 12.07.2021 passed by the appellant. The appellant contended that the writ petition was improperly entertained as an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act was available and not exhausted. The respondent, however, submitted that an appeal against the original assessment order dated 25.10.2018 had been preferred and sought a direction for its disposal.

Held

The Court, without delving into the merits of the contentions raised by either side, aimed to provide a quietus to the issue. The Court ordered that the original order dated 12.07.2021, which was challenged in the writ petition, shall be kept in abeyance. This abeyance will continue until the appeal filed by the respondent (S. Chidambara Karthikeyan) is disposed of. Consequently, the writ appeal was disposed of with a specific direction to the appellate authority to dispose of Appeal No.ST/40415/2020 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court did not decide on the legality of the writ Court's order or the merits of the original assessment. No costs were imposed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ Court erred in entertaining the writ petition and setting aside the impugned order without considering the alternative remedy of appeal available under Section 85 of the Finance Act, thereby rendering the writ petition per se illegal for non-exhaustion of the appellate remedy? 2. Whether the writ Court's allowance of the writ petition on the ground that no stay was granted by the tribunal is justified? Contentions of the Appellant (Joint Commissioner): The appellant argued that the writ petition was maintainable only after exhausting the statutory appeal remedy provided under Section 85 of the Finance Act. They contended that the writ Court's decision to set aside the impugned order without considering this alternative remedy was illegal. The appellant also argued that the writ Court's justification for allowing the petition, based on the absence of a stay from the tribunal, was without merit, as mere filing of an appeal does not automatically nullify the original order unless modified or varied. Contentions of the Respondent (S. Chidambara Karthikeyan): The respondent submitted that an appeal had already been filed against the original assessment order dated 25.10.2018 and requested a direction for the disposal of this pending appeal.