M/S Lions Construction Through Its Proprietor Smt Arati Devi vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable. The reasoning was based on the existence of an alternative remedy of appeal as stipulated under the Finance Act, 1994. The Court found that since a provision for appeal is available, it is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts generally do not entertain writ petitions when an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved party. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority to challenge the impugned demand.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Lions Construction, through its Proprietor Smt. Arati Devi, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court. The petition challenged an order passed under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Section 174 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This order imposed a demand of Rs. 2,76,83,820/-. The respondents, Union of India and the Principal Commissioner CGST & Central Excise, Ranchi, argued that an alternative remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner under the Finance Act, 1994. They contended that since the demand involved adjudication, the statutory forum for the first instance was available, and therefore, the writ petition should not be entertained.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative remedy of appeal is available under the Finance Act, 1994, as argued by the respondent-revenue? 2. Whether the issue of demand, which depends on adjudication, should be first addressed by the statutory forum, as contended by the respondent-revenue? The petitioner argued for the maintainability of the writ petition. The respondent-revenue argued that the writ petition should not be entertained because a statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available under the Finance Act, 1994. They further contended that the issue of demand requires adjudication, and the appropriate forum for this is the statutory appellate authority, not the High Court in its writ jurisdiction at the first instance.