M/S. The Marthandam Bee Keepers Co-Operative Society LTD. vs. The Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. The Marthandam Bee Keepers Co-operative Society Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an order of assessment dated 04.12.2024, issued by the third respondent, the Additional / Joint Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Tirunelveli Sub Commissionerate. The petitioner sought to quash this impugned order. The respondents were the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Madurai, the Additional Director General of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Coimbatore, and the Additional / Joint Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Tirunelveli.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and others vs. Commercial Steel Limited, which outlines the exceptional circumstances under which a writ petition can be entertained despite the availability of an alternative remedy. The Court found that none of these exceptional circumstances were established by the petitioner. Therefore, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition on its merits. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the appellate authority by filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The Court directed that if an appeal is filed within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, it shall be entertained by the appellate authority without insisting on the limitation period and disposed of within two months thereafter. No observations were made on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an alternative statutory remedy is available to the petitioner? The petitioner argued on the merits of the impugned order. The respondents contended that the petitioner had a statutory remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act and that the writ petition was not maintainable. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and others vs. Commercial Steel Limited, which held that a writ petition under Article 226 is not appropriate when an alternative remedy exists, unless exceptional circumstances like breach of fundamental rights, violation of principles of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or challenge to the vires of a statute are established.