M/S Mango Municipal Corporation Through Its Assistant Municipal Commissioner Aquib Javed vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the writ petitions were not fit cases to be entertained under its extraordinary jurisdiction. It found that the petitioners had an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court was not satisfied that the impugned orders were "wholly without jurisdiction," as required by the test laid down in *Whirlpool Corporation* and *Godrej Sara Lee Ltd.*. The determination of the issues, including the jurisdictional aspect, involved factual elements that could not be appropriately adjudicated in the summary jurisdiction of a writ petition. The Court noted that the petitioners' arguments regarding the illegality of GST levy and constitutional interpretation could be raised before the appellate authority. The Court declined to entertain the writ petitions but granted liberty to the petitioners to file appeals within four weeks, directing the appellate authority to consider them on merits without being influenced by the issue of limitation, and leaving all contentions of the parties open.

Facts

The petitioners, various Municipal Corporations and Nagar Parishads, filed writ petitions challenging orders passed by adjudicating authorities imposing GST. The petitioners contended that the demand for GST was illegal and without jurisdiction, citing constitutional provisions and Supreme Court judgments. They argued that local self-government bodies are immune from such taxation. The respondents argued that the petitioners had an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, and that the blanket exemption claimed was misconceived, as GST could be imposed on routine sale of goods or services transactions. The High Court was asked to decide whether to entertain the writ petitions despite the availability of an appellate remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petitions are maintainable before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, despite the availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017? (Question of law) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the demand for GST was patently illegal and without jurisdiction, relying on Supreme Court judgments in *Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority* and *Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai* to assert that the alternative remedy is not a bar when an order is wholly without jurisdiction. They also cited a Madras High Court decision in *Cuddalore Municipality v. Joint Commissioner of GST and Central Excise* and constitutional provisions (Article 243W & 243X, Entry-V in List-2 of Schedule-VII) to argue for immunity from GST. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents contended that the petitioners' claim of blanket immunity was misconceived. They argued that the adjudicating authority considered factual aspects and concluded that only core activities might be exempt, and that GST was imposed on routine transactions without any constitutional or statutory bar. They reiterated that the appellate authority was the appropriate forum.