M/S. New Tak Parcell Cargo Clearing Agency, Through Its Proprietor, Sri Tariq Siddiqi vs. The Principal Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Ranchi

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was misconceived because the petitioner had an alternative remedy of preferring an appeal. The Court noted that the petitioner had indeed filed an appeal, but it was dismissed for non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act, 2017. Despite dismissing the writ petition, the Court provided a conditional relief. It clarified that if the petitioner makes the pre-deposit in accordance with Section 107(6) of the CGST Act, 2017, their fresh appeal would be entertained by the appellate authority. The appellate authority would be required to decide the appeal on merits without raising any objection regarding the limitation period. The ratio decidendi is that statutory remedies must be exhausted, and procedural requirements like pre-deposit are mandatory for availing appellate remedies.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. New Tak Parcell Cargo Clearing Agency, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court. The petitioner had previously filed an appeal before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & CX, Ranchi. However, this appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority due to the petitioner's non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement stipulated under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act, 2017. The respondents are various authorities under the CGST & CX, Ranchi. The writ petition was filed challenging the dismissal of the appeal and seeking a remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017? The petitioner's contention, implied by filing the writ petition, is that the dismissal of their appeal for non-compliance with pre-deposit was unjust or that the writ court should intervene despite the availability of an appeal. The respondents' position, as indicated by the court's observation, is that the writ petition is misconceived because a statutory remedy of appeal exists. The court also noted that the petitioner had indeed preferred an appeal, which was dismissed for non-compliance with Section 107(6) of the CGST Act, 2017, suggesting the respondents would argue that the petitioner failed to exhaust the available remedy properly.