M/S Vardhman Trading Company vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that since the GST Tribunal has been constituted under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017, an equally efficacious remedy is now available to the petitioners. Consequently, the Court was not inclined to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The Court's reasoning was based on the principle that when a statutory appellate forum with the power to adjudicate all issues exists, writ jurisdiction should generally not be invoked. The ratio decidendi is that the availability of an alternative, equally effective remedy bars the exercise of writ powers. The Court remanded all the matters to the learned GST Tribunal for adjudication on merit, keeping all issues and contentions raised in the writ petitions open for the Tribunal's decision. Petitioners were granted 30 days from the order's upload to approach the Tribunal, with the time spent in the High Court not being counted for limitation.

Facts

Multiple writ petitions were filed before the Rajasthan High Court challenging various orders and actions under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. The petitioners, including companies like M/s Shree Krishna Rolling Mills (Jaipur) Ltd, M/s HPM Chemicals And Fertilizers Ltd., and M/s Krishcon Property Developers Pvt. Ltd., were contesting decisions made by GST authorities. The specific tax periods and amounts in dispute were not detailed in the provided excerpt. The procedural history leading to these petitions involved challenges to actions taken by Assistant Commissioners, Joint Commissioners, and other GST authorities, culminating in their filing before the High Court.

Key Issues

The primary issue before the Court was whether it should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to adjudicate the matters, given the subsequent constitution of the GST Tribunal. The Court had to decide if the newly constituted GST Tribunal provided an equally efficacious remedy, thereby obviating the need for the High Court's intervention. The petitioners, by approaching the High Court, implicitly argued for the High Court's jurisdiction. The respondent GST authorities, by implication, would likely contend that the Tribunal is the appropriate forum. The Court's decision hinges on the availability and efficacy of the appellate remedy before the GST Tribunal, as established under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017.