M/S Baxter (INDIA) PVT. LTD. vs. The Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division East-2, Gurugram

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Baxter (India) Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 15.09.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division East-2, Gurugram, which rejected their refund claim. The petitioner initially averred in their petition that no alternative remedy was available. However, during the course of arguments, the petitioner's counsel conceded that a statutory remedy of appeal was available under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. Faced with this, the petitioner did not press the writ petition and sought permission to withdraw it with liberty to avail the statutory remedy.

Held

The Court held that the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court is not to be exercised when an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, citing the settled position of law in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon & others. The petitioner conceded that a remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act was available. Therefore, the writ petition was not pressed by the petitioner. The Court ordered that if the appeal is filed within two weeks from the date of the order, the Appellate Authority should consider the period during which the writ petition was pending before the High Court and condone any delay accordingly. The Court did not decide the merits of the refund claim.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India when an efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal is available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner initially claimed in their writ petition that no alternative remedy was available. However, during arguments, the petitioner's counsel conceded that a remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act was available. Respondent's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the respondent. However, the Court's decision implies that the availability of a statutory remedy is a ground to decline writ jurisdiction.