M/S. Chinnamanur Sri Annai Abirami Chit Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise
Held
The Court held that the Writ Court was correct in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of the availability of an alternative remedy. The Court agreed with the respondents that the pre-deposit requirement of 7.5% of the tax levied was not onerous. Although the appellant raised other contentions on merits, the Court desisted from considering them at that stage due to the availability of an effective alternative remedy before the appellate authority, which could also examine questions of fact. Therefore, the order of the Writ Court was sustained. The Court granted the appellant one month from the date of receipt of the judgment to prefer an appeal, with the appellate authority directed to entertain it without reference to delay.
Facts
The appellant, M/s.Chinnamanur Sri Annai Abirami chit (P) Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the GST and Central Excise authorities. The Writ Court dismissed the petition, citing the availability of an alternative remedy. The appellant then filed this Writ Appeal against the order of the Writ Court. The primary contention of the appellant was the pre-deposit condition for filing an appeal. The respondents argued that the pre-deposit requirement of 7.5% of the tax levied was not onerous. The appellate court acknowledged the availability of an alternative remedy but granted the appellant time to file the appeal.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Writ Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition solely on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy, despite the appellant's contentions regarding the pre-deposit condition? Petitioner's argument: The appellant contended that the pre-deposit condition for filing an appeal was an impediment. While the judgment does not explicitly detail other contentions on merits, it notes that the appellant urged them. Revenue's argument: The respondents argued that the pre-deposit requirement of 7.5% of the tax levied was not onerous and that an alternative remedy was available before the appellate authority, which could address factual disputes.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.06.2023 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI and CMP(MD)No.5976 of 2023 M/s.Chinnamanur Sri Annai Abirami chit (P) Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director S.Samandi, 429, South Car Street, Seepalakottai Road, Chinnamanur, Theni District. ... Appellant vs.
The Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Dindigul-II Division, Dindigul.
The Superintendent of CGST & Central Excise, Theni Range, Theni. ... Respondents PRAYER : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order of the learned Judge passed in W.P(MD)No. 25291/2022 dated 08.11.2022 on the file of this Court. For Appellant : Mr.S.Karunakar For Respondents : Mr.N.Dilipkumar Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Mr.K.Prabhu, Junior Standing Counsel 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) The Writ Court has rejected the claim of the writ petitioner on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. The only impediment that is projected by the learned c
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.