Vidyut Gupta And 2 Others vs. Commissioner Of Central Excise And GST
Facts
The petitioners, Vidyut Gupta and two others, filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking to quash an order dated 24.10.2018 issued by the Superintendent (Adj.) CGST, Varanasi, under the Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Varanasi. The petitioners sought this relief along with any other suitable direction and costs. The respondent, Commissioner of Central Excise and GST, contended that an alternative remedy was available to the petitioners. This contention was not disputed by the petitioners' counsel.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy. The respondent's contention that the petitioners could approach the appellate tribunal under Section 35-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was accepted. Since the petitioner did not dispute the existence of this alternative remedy, the Court found no reason to entertain the writ petition. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts generally do not entertain writ petitions when an efficacious alternative remedy is available, unless there are exceptional circumstances not present in this case. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed on this ground.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 35-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944? The petitioner sought to quash an order dated 24.10.2018. The respondent argued that the petitioners could approach the appellate tribunal under Section 35-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as an alternative remedy. The petitioner did not dispute this fact.
Sections Cited
Section 35-B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 59 of 2021 Petitioner :- Vidyut Gupta And 2 Others Respondent :- Commissioner Of Central Excise And Gst Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- Ramesh Chandra Shukla Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ramesh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and have taken through the record.
The instant writ petition has been filed with the following relief' "(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 24.10.2018 issued by Superintendent (Adj.) CGST Varanasi, Office of Commissioner of Central Excise, Varanasi (Annexure-7 to the writ petition). (b) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; and (c) Award costs of the petition to the petitioners throughout."
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has contended that there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioners to approach before the appellate tribunal under Section 35-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.