Ramashanker Lakshmi Narayan And Bros. vs. Union Of INDIA And Another

Facts

The petitioner, Ramashanker Lakshmi Narayan And Bros., challenged an order dated 28.11.2022 passed by the Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Commissionerate Varanasi. This order levied National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) of Rs. 7,80,99,327/- on the petitioner, along with an equal amount of penalty. The petitioner contended that the demand was without authority of law because the goods had been exported, thus no liability should arise. The revenue raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, citing the existence of factual disputes that could be addressed by the appellate authority. The tax period is not specified. The procedural history involves the issuance of an adjudication order by the Commissioner.

Held

The Court declined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, citing the availability of a statutory alternative remedy of appeal in taxation matters, particularly after an adjudication order has been passed. The Court reasoned that in such circumstances, it should proceed cautiously in entertaining a writ petition. The Court did not examine the merits of the case. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition with an observation that if the petitioner files a statutory appeal within two weeks from the date of the order, complying with the terms and conditions for filing such an appeal, the appeal authority should hear and decide it expeditiously without raising any objection as to limitation. Any stay application filed with the appeal should also be considered on its own merits. The Court explicitly stated that it had not examined the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal available to the petitioner under the CGST Act, especially after an adjudication order has been passed? (Question of law) The petitioner argued that the demand was wholly without authority of law as the entire quantities of goods had been exported, negating any tax liability. They sought to raise these grounds, along with the legality of the levy, in the writ petition. The revenue contended that factual disputes were involved, making the writ petition unsuitable for adjudication and that the appeal authority was the appropriate forum. The revenue also raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition.