M/S Sujata Udit Builders Private Limited, Through Its Director, Mr. Shankar Kumar Kunwar vs. Chief Commissioner, Central Goods And Service Taxes And Central Excise , Ranchi Zone, Patna

Held

The Court held that ordinarily, a petitioner cannot bypass the statutory appeal remedy when it is available and efficacious. The Court noted that the Supreme Court in GMR Airport Infrastructure Ltd. was considering the larger issue of delayed adjudication and had directed that hearings on such matters might be deferred. However, the present petition was filed after the Supreme Court's order and raised multiple grounds beyond just delayed adjudication. The Court reasoned that if the Supreme Court were to hold that delayed adjudication alone is a ground to quash orders, the petitioner might succeed, but if not, all other factual issues would need adjudication, which is not the primary function of the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. The Court found that the appeal remedy is more comprehensive. Regarding the inability to pay pre-deposit, the Court stated that the right to appeal is subject to statutory conditions, including pre-deposit, and the petitioner's audited accounts alone were not sufficient to deem the alternate remedy inefficacious. The Court reiterated its practice, as seen in similar cases like M/s Navjeevan Construction, of relegating parties to the alternate remedy unless an extraordinary case is made out. The Court, therefore, declined to entertain the writ petition and relegated the petitioner to the alternate remedy of appeal, with liberty to file the appeal within four weeks and a direction to the Appellate Authority to consider it on merits without being constrained by the issue of limitation, provided statutory pre-requisites are met.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sujata Udit Builders Private Limited, challenged an Order-In-Original dated 29.09.2025 issued by the Superintendent (Adjudication), Central Goods and Service Taxes, Ranchi. The petitioner contended that the order was vitiated by delayed adjudication, as a notice was issued on 29.09.2020, and the final order was passed five years later. The petitioner also argued that the appeal remedy required a pre-deposit, which they could not afford, as evidenced by their audited accounts. Furthermore, the petitioner raised other grounds challenging the order, including alleged exemptions for government construction work that were ignored. The respondents argued that the petitioner had an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal and should not bypass the statutory regime. They cited a previous case where the High Court declined to entertain a writ petition on similar grounds.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Order-In-Original dated 29.09.2025 is vitiated due to delayed adjudication, contrary to the principles of natural justice and the observations of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. GMR Airport Infrastructure Ltd. (Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 5392 of 2025)? 2. Whether the petitioner can bypass the statutory appeal remedy due to their alleged inability to make the pre-deposit, thereby rendering the alternative remedy inefficacious? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the five-year delay in passing the Order-In-Original renders it invalid. They relied on the Supreme Court's observation in the GMR Airport Infrastructure Ltd. case, suggesting that such matters might be deferred pending the Supreme Court's decision on larger issues of delayed adjudication. The petitioner also claimed inability to meet the pre-deposit requirement for appeal, citing audited accounts, and argued that other High Courts have entertained similar petitions. They also raised substantive grounds against the order, including the imposition of liability despite exemptions for government construction. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents contended that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal and cannot bypass the statutory regime. They cited a previous High Court decision in M/s Navjeevan Construction Vs. Union of India & Anr., W.P.(T) No. 2462 of 2026, where the Court directed the petitioner to avail of the alternative remedy. They argued that the petitioner's inability to pay pre-deposit does not justify bypassing the statutory appeal process.