Sri Jeyaram Company vs. The Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise

Held

The Court held that it would not ordinarily entertain a writ petition when an efficacious appeal remedy is available to the petitioner. The Court observed that the impugned order indicated that the respondent had considered the petitioner's reply and passed a detailed order rejecting the petitioner's contentions. Therefore, the Court found no compelling circumstances to interfere with the order in the writ petition. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts should generally relegate parties to statutory appeal remedies when they are available and appear to be efficacious, rather than exercising writ jurisdiction, especially when the impugned order shows due consideration of the petitioner's submissions. The Court dismissed the writ petition without venturing into the merits of the impugned order but granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal as available in the manner known to law.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Jeyaram Company, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an order in original dated 29.08.2024, passed by the Superintendent of CGST & Central Excise, Rajapalayam-II Range. The impugned order pertains to the tax period 2019-2020. The petitioner sought to quash the order, contending it was unlawful, without jurisdiction, and barred by limitation. The respondent, the Superintendent of CGST & Central Excise, argued that an appeal could be preferred against the impugned order to the Additional Commissioner / Joint Commissioner (Appeals). The petitioner argued that the order was passed without proper enquiry or verification and cited judgments to support their contentions. The High Court noted that the respondent's order indicated that the petitioner's reply was considered and rejected after a detailed order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner against the impugned order passed by the respondent authority? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without proper enquiry or verification of records and relied on certain judgments to support their claim regarding the manner in which the order was passed. They argued that the order was unlawful, without jurisdiction, and barred by limitation. Respondent's arguments: The respondent, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, argued that an appeal could be preferred against the impugned order before the Additional Commissioner / Joint Commissioner (Appeals), indicating the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.