M/S Karni Stone Works Through Its Proprietor Namely Manik Chandra Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA Thro Principal Commissioner Central GST And Central Excise, Ranchi

Held

The Court held that the writ application is not maintainable. It was undisputed that an appeal lies against the impugned order. Therefore, instead of availing the alternative remedy available under the statute, the petitioner approached the High Court by filing this writ application. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The writ application was disposed of by permitting the petitioner to pursue the remedy before the appropriate authority in accordance with law. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts will generally not entertain writ petitions when an efficacious alternative remedy is available, especially when disputed questions of fact are involved.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Karni Stone Works, filed a writ application challenging an order dated 30.10.2023, including a summary in Form GST DRC-07, passed by the Superintendent Central GST & Central Excise, Range Dumka. This order pertains to the period 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2020 and was issued pursuant to a Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 16.08.2023. The core of the dispute is the levy of GST on royalty paid by the petitioner to the State of Jharkhand for a mining lease of 'Stone Boulders'. The petitioner sought to quash the order and declare that no GST is leviable on royalty and District Mineral Fund contributions, arguing they are in the nature of a 'tax' or 'profit a prendre' and not consideration for services.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ application is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available against the impugned order? The petitioner contended that the order imposing GST is not in consonance with the law and therefore, approached the High Court directly. They also stated that the matter is connected to another pending writ petition. The respondents vehemently contended that the impugned order is appealable. They argued that since an alternative remedy exists, and disputed questions of fact are involved, the writ application is not maintainable and the matter should be adjudicated by the Appellate Authority.