M/S Prasad Explosives And Chemicals Thro Its Partner Subodh Kumar Prasad vs. The Principal Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax And Central Excise

Held

The Court noted the preliminary objection raised by the Revenue regarding the maintainability of the writ petition due to the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal. The petitioner's primary contention was that the impugned order contained a typographical error, referencing tax periods of 2017-18 and 2018-19, whereas the show cause notice was for July 2017 to March 2018. This discrepancy, the petitioner argued, would lead to a higher pre-requisite deposit for filing an appeal, causing hardship. The Revenue, after taking instructions, conceded that the reference to the tax periods in paragraphs 4.1(i) and 4.8 of the impugned order was indeed a typographical error. In light of this concession, the petitioner sought leave to withdraw the writ petition to file an appeal. The Court granted this liberty, directing that the appeal be filed within two weeks and that the appellate authority decide it within six weeks in accordance with the law. The issue of the maintainability of the writ petition was rendered moot by the petitioner's withdrawal and the Revenue's concession.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Prasad Explosive & Chemicals, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 27.12.2023. The respondents, CGST authorities, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition due to the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal. The petitioner argued that the impugned order incorrectly referred to tax periods of 2017-18 and 2018-19, whereas the show cause notice pertained only to July 2017 to March 2018. This discrepancy, the petitioner contended, would necessitate depositing a larger pre-requisite amount for appeal, causing hardship. The respondents initially sought time to take instructions. Subsequently, the respondents conceded that the reference to 2017-18 and 2018-19 in paragraphs 4.1(i) and 4.8 of the impugned order was a typographical error.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court, considering the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, as argued by the Revenue. 2. Whether the discrepancy in the tax periods mentioned in the show cause notice (July 2017 to March 2018) and the impugned order (2017-18 and 2018-19) renders the alternative remedy of appeal ineffective or unduly burdensome for the petitioner, thereby justifying the invocation of writ jurisdiction. Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the discrepancy in tax periods, specifically the inclusion of 2018-19 in the adjudication order when the show cause notice was for July 2017 to March 2018, would require them to deposit a larger pre-requisite amount for filing an appeal, causing hardship. They also raised concerns about potential overlapping of amounts for different tax periods. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue initially raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition due to the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal. Upon instruction, the Revenue conceded that the reference to the tax periods 2017-18 and 2018-19 in certain paragraphs of the impugned order was a typographical error.