M/S Maa Bhanbhori Enterprises, Through Its Proprietor Mr. Ravi Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIA Through Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise

Held

The Court held that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the Court chose not to delve into the merits of the questions raised in the writ petition. The reasoning is that statutory remedies are designed to address such grievances, and it is appropriate for the petitioner to exhaust these avenues first. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts should generally relegate parties to statutory remedies when they are available and effective. The operative direction is to dispose of the writ petition, leaving it open for the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. The Court further directed that the period spent by the petitioner before the High Court, from October 15, 2025, up to the date of the order, shall be excluded while calculating the period of limitation for filing the appeal.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Maa Bhanbhori Enterprises, through its proprietor Mr. Ravi Kumar, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court. The respondents are various authorities under the CGST and Central Excise department, including the Union of India, the Assistant Commissioner, and Superintendents. The specific tax period and the order or action under challenge are not detailed in the provided text. The amount in dispute is also not mentioned. The procedural history indicates the writ petition was filed on or after October 15, 2025.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy available under the CGST Act, 2017? (Question of law) The petitioner's contention is not recorded in the judgment. The respondents' contention, implicitly, is that the petitioner ought to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal. The Court's decision hinges on the existence and efficacy of the appellate mechanism provided under the CGST Act.