Reliance Realty LTD vs. Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise Belapur Commissionerate

Held

The Court declined to entertain the writ petition, primarily on the ground of the availability of an efficacious alternate remedy. The Court found no clear and patent case of violation of natural justice, stating that an investigation into facts would be necessary, which is not suitable for a writ petition. The Court also noted the significant delay in filing the petition, as the impugned order was passed on 27 May 2021, and the petition was filed on 14 December 2024. The alleged non-service of the order was considered a disputed question of fact. Relying on precedents, including Oberoi Construction vs. Union of India and Rikab Chand Jain vs. Union of India & Ors., the Court held that unless a matter falls within specific exceptions (breach of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, unconstitutionality), a writ court may refuse to entertain a petition, especially when there is a delay and a statutory remedy is available. The Court dismissed the petition with liberty to the Petitioner to pursue the alternate remedy of appeal, leaving all contentions on merits open.

Facts

The Petitioner, Reliance Realty Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an Order-in-Original dated 27 May 2021, passed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Belapur Commissionerate. The Petitioner contended that the order was not served and they became aware of it through a phone call on 23 October 2024. The Petitioner also raised grounds concerning the invocation of the extended period of limitation and the absence of a pre-consultation notice. The writ petition was filed on 14 December 2024, approximately three and a half years after the impugned order was passed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner has exhausted the alternate remedy of appeal available against the Order-in-Original dated 27 May 2021, as mandated by law. 2. Whether the present writ petition is maintainable in light of the delay in filing and the availability of an efficacious alternate remedy. 3. Whether there was a clear and patent violation of natural justice or a lack of jurisdiction that would warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that exceptions to the rule of exhausting alternate remedies should apply, citing decisions of various High Courts. They also raised grounds regarding infirmities in the invocation of the extended period of limitation and the absence of a pre-consultation notice. They further contended that the impugned order was not served and they only became aware of it recently. Respondent's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the Respondent. However, the Court's reasoning implies that the Respondent would likely rely on the availability of the statutory appeal remedy and the Petitioner's delay.