Saifuddin Ahmad vs. The Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Thru. Chairman And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Saifuddin Ahmad, is challenging an order dated 22.11.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Lucknow. This order confirmed a demand of Rs. 65,86,883/- against the petitioner and imposed a penalty under Section 77(c)(i) of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Sections 142 and 174 of the CGST Act, 2017. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has already filed an appeal against the same order before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), which is pending. The petitioner's counsel conceded that an appeal was filed before CESTAT but stated that the present petition was filed because the petitioner was unable to pre-deposit 2.5% of the due amount.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The reasoning was based on the principle that the jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary and discretionary. Once the petitioner had availed of his statutory remedy by filing an appeal before the CESTAT, and that appeal was pending consideration, the High Court should not entertain a parallel writ petition against the same order. The Court noted that the petitioner's inability to pre-deposit the statutory amount did not, in itself, render the statutory appeal ineffective or justify approaching the High Court under its extraordinary powers. The ratio decidendi is that a party cannot pursue concurrent remedies; having chosen a statutory forum, the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction is generally not to be invoked while the statutory appeal is pending. The petition was dismissed on this preliminary ground.

Key Issues

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable when a statutory appeal against the same order is pending before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the writ petition was maintainable because he was unable to pre-deposit the required 2.5% of the disputed amount, which prevented him from effectively pursuing his appeal before the CESTAT. He approached the High Court due to this financial impediment. Respondent's Contention: The respondents contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had already availed of his statutory remedy by filing an appeal before the CESTAT. They argued that the petitioner could not pursue parallel remedies before two different forums for the same cause of action. They relied on the principle that once a statutory appeal is pending, extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 should not be exercised.