Nishant Kumar Singh @ Nishant Kumar vs. Chief Commissioner , CGST And Central Excise

Held

The Court held that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of preferring an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court found no exceptional circumstance to entertain the present writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner was granted liberty to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority in accordance with law. The ratio decidendi is that writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be entertained when an equally effective statutory remedy is available, unless there are compelling reasons or exceptional circumstances. The Court did not decide on the merits of the case or the underlying GST dispute.

Facts

The petitioner, Nishant Kumar Singh, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court challenging an order or action by the Assistant Commissioner, Central GST & Central Excise Division, Deoghar. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history leading to the writ petition is also not detailed. The respondents are the Chief Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Ranchi, and other CGST and Central Excise authorities.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court, given the availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy under the CGST Act, 2017? (Question of law) Petitioner's argument: The petitioner has approached this Court by way of a writ petition. (No specific argument recorded regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or against the availability of the alternative remedy). Revenue's argument: The petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of preferring an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. (No specific argument recorded beyond this statement).