M/S. Maa Rani Sati Enterprises Through Its Proprietor Sumit Kumar Agarwal vs. The Principal Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Ranchi

Held

The Court held that the case was neither fit nor exceptional to allow the petitioner to bypass the alternate statutory remedy of appeal. Regarding the applicability and interpretation of the circular, the Court found that this was a matter best decided by the appellate authority in the first instance. Similarly, the alleged non-consideration of a particular argument was not deemed sufficient to bypass the efficacious alternate remedy. The Court distinguished between an error within jurisdiction and an error without jurisdiction, concluding that the petitioner had not made out a case of the latter. Relying on the Bombay High Court's decision in Oberoi Constructions Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3508, and Supreme Court decisions referred therein, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition. The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal within six weeks, and the appellate authority was directed to dispose of the appeal on its merits without considering the issue of limitation, given the petitioner's bona fide pursuit of the writ petition within the original limitation period. All contentions on merits were left open to be decided by the appellate authority.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Maa Rani Sati Enterprises, challenged an order dated June 30, 2025, passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST & CX, Ranchi. The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction, citing the department's failure to follow departmental circular no. 171/03/2022-GST dated July 6, 2022, and the non-consideration of one of its arguments raised in response to the show cause notice. The respondents contended that the circular was not applicable or misinterpreted, and that all contentions were addressed. They asserted that these issues could be raised in an appeal and that there was no justification to bypass the statutory remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to bypass the alternate statutory remedy of appeal against the order dated June 30, 2025, passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST & CX, Ranchi, on the grounds that the departmental circular no. 171/03/2022-GST dated July 6, 2022, was not followed and a specific argument raised by the petitioner was not considered. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the departmental circulars bind the department and their non-adherence renders the impugned order wholly without jurisdiction, thus justifying bypassing the alternate remedy. It was also argued that the non-consideration of a specific argument further supported this position. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the circular relied upon by the petitioner was not applicable or was being misinterpreted. They maintained that all contentions raised by the petitioner were duly addressed in the impugned order and that the issues raised were matters that could and should be addressed in the statutory appeal, with no exceptional circumstances warranting bypassing the alternate remedy.