M/S. Cj Darcl Logistics LTD. Rep. Thr. Its Duly Authorized Signatory Subodh Kumar Bajaj vs. The Union Of INDIA Represented Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Dept. Of Revenue

Held

The Court declined to entertain the writ petition, holding that statutory alternate remedies cannot be bypassed solely on the ground of prolonged litigation. The Court noted that the appellate tribunal accepts filings, and the order impugned in the petition is appealable before it. Furthermore, since the petitioner was only seeking interest on a refund already allowed, there would be no requirement for any pre-deposit for the entertainment of its appeal. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to institute an appeal before the tribunal within four weeks of the order's uploading, raising all contentions from the writ petition. If filed within this period, the tribunal was directed to dispose of the appeal on merits without considering the issue of limitation, acknowledging the petitioner's bona fide pursuit of the writ petition and genuine confusion regarding the tribunal's functionality.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. CJ Darcl Logistics Limited, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court challenging an order passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), CGST and Central Excise. The petitioner sought interest on a refund that had already been allowed. The respondents were the Union of India and various CGST authorities. The core of the dispute was the petitioner's desire to bypass the statutory appeal mechanism due to prolonged litigation and confusion regarding the functionality of the appellate tribunal. The petitioner argued that they had already spent considerable time in litigation and should not be forced to file a statutory appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when a statutory appellate remedy is available before the GST Appellate Tribunal, particularly when the petitioner is seeking interest on a refund already granted? 2. Whether the petitioner's argument of having spent sufficient time in litigation justifies bypassing the statutory appeal mechanism? The petitioner contended that they should not be relegated to the remedy of statutory appeal as they had already spent sufficient time in litigation. The respondents, through their counsel, reported that the appellate tribunal accepts filings but has not commenced judicial hearings due to unfilled vacancies, though steps are being taken to fill them. They argued that since the impugned order is appealable before the tribunal and no pre-deposit is required for interest claims, the writ petition should not be entertained.