M/S.Hi-Tech Arai PVT. LTD. vs. The Assistant Commissioner

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had a clear alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, against the order-in-original dated 03.06.2020. The Court also noted the availability of a remedy under Section 161 of the Act for rectification of errors apparent on the face of the record. The Court reiterated the settled legal position that writ petitions are generally not entertained in revenue matters without exhausting the statutory appeal remedies, except in cases of lack of jurisdiction or violation of principles of natural justice. Since these exceptions were not argued or established, the Court declined to decide the merits of the case. Instead, the Court relegated the petitioner to approach the appellate authority or the original adjudicating authority within a specified period. The appellate authority or original adjudicating authority was directed to entertain the petitioner's plea and decide it on merits within three months.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Hi-Tech Arai Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court seeking to quash an order dated 03.06.2020 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax & Central Excise, Madurai I Division. The petitioner contended that the order was without jurisdiction and in violation of Sections 140(1) and 140(7) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner approached the High Court directly under Article 226 of the Constitution, bypassing the statutory appeal remedy, arguing that there was an error apparent on the face of the record and that an appeal might not result in proper interpretation or justice. The respondent revenue authority argued that an appeal remedy was available under Section 107 of the CGST Act, and that the petitioner should have availed it.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is justified in invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, bypassing the statutory appeal remedy provided under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, when the impugned order is alleged to contain an error apparent on the face of the record? The petitioner argued that direct writ intervention was warranted due to an error apparent on the face of the record, suggesting that a statutory appeal might not provide adequate justice or proper interpretation. The petitioner sought to bypass the appellate mechanism. The respondent contended that the petitioner had a clear alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, and that the writ petition was not maintainable. The respondent relied on Section 161 of the CGST Act for rectification of errors and cited various High Court and Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the exhaustion of alternative remedies, particularly in tax matters, unless there are specific exceptions like lack of jurisdiction or violation of natural justice.