Technobile Systems PVT. LTD. vs. The Union Of INDIA And Anr.

Facts

The petitioner, Technobile Systems Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging an Order-in-Appeal dated April 30, 2021, passed by the Commissioner of CGST (Appeals). This order confirmed a demand of tax on the provision of Set Top Boxes. The petitioner sought to declare the order as without jurisdiction. The respondents, Union of India and another, through their counsel, stated that the issues raised could be addressed in a statutory appeal before the CESTAT. The petitioner argued that the appellate order failed to consider judgments they relied upon, constituting a breach of natural justice, and that High Courts can entertain writ petitions even with an alternative appeal remedy in such circumstances. The Court considered the arguments presented.

Held

The Court held that the legal issue raised by the petitioner, specifically the non-reference to the judgments they relied upon in the impugned order, could be appreciated by the Tribunal. Consequently, the Court decided to relegate the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The Court acknowledged that while there are precedents allowing writ petitions in cases of breach of natural justice, there are also judgments stating that writ petitions should normally not be entertained where an efficacious remedy of appeal exists. The Court found the latter principle applicable in this instance. The present writ petition was disposed of with the direction to approach the CESTAT.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the impugned order allegedly fails to consider judgments relied upon by the petitioner, despite the availability of a statutory appeal remedy before the CESTAT? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed in breach of the principles of natural justice as it failed to consider the judgments specifically relied upon by them. They argued that in such cases, the mere availability of a right of appeal does not preclude the High Court from exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226. They cited precedents supporting this view. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, through their counsel, argued that the issues raised in the petition could be adequately addressed in a statutory appeal before the CESTAT. They did not explicitly address the petitioner's contention regarding the non-consideration of relied-upon judgments.