M/S Lal And Kumar Humayunpur Uttari Gorakhpur vs. Commissioner (Appeals) CGST And Central Excise And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Lal And Kumar Humayunpur Uttari Gorakhpur, filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court challenging an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST and Central Excise. The respondent revenue authorities raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned order. This objection was based on a judgment of the Apex Court. The petitioner countered by arguing that a delay in filing an appeal could not be condoned beyond the prescribed period, and therefore, the writ petition should be entertained.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The reasoning was based on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer (supra). The Apex Court had specifically mentioned that a delay in approaching the authority as prescribed under the Act would not entitle the petitioner to file a writ petition. Therefore, the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal, as provided under the CGST Act, rendered the writ petition infructuous. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's case or the specific order under challenge, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of maintainability. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether a writ petition is maintainable when an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, as per Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, and the judgment of the Apex Court in Assistant Commercial (C.T.), LTU, Kakinada, Vs. Glazo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd.? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that since the delay in filing an appeal could not be condoned beyond the prescribed period under the Act, the writ petition should be entertained. The petitioner did not explicitly name any specific provision of the CGST Act supporting this argument beyond the general implication of delay condonation. Respondent's contention: The respondent relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Assistant Commercial (C.T.), LTU, Kakinada, Vs. Glazo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. to argue that a writ petition is not maintainable if an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal is available. They also implicitly referred to the provisions of the CGST Act that prescribe the appellate mechanism.