M/S. Singhal Business PVT.LTD. vs. Deputy Director, Dggsti, Zonal Unit, Bbsr

Held

The Court did not entertain the writ petition directly, citing the objection raised by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the revenue regarding the maintainability of the writ petition due to the availability of an alternative efficacious remedy. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Rule 108 of the CGST Rules, 2017. Therefore, the Court declined to decide the merits of the case at this stage. The ratio of the decision is that High Courts may decline to entertain writ petitions when an alternative statutory remedy is available and has not been exhausted by the petitioner. The Court directed that if the petitioner files an appeal within 15 days from the date of the order, it shall be entertained and decided on merits in accordance with law. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the Court chose not to delve into the merits of the original challenge.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Singhal Business Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging a letter/order dated 07.07.2020, issued by the Deputy Director, DGGSTI, Zonal Unit, Bhubaneswar. This order had turned down the petitioner's request for blocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Rule 86A(1)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (Ninth Amendment) Rules, 2019. The revenue, represented by the Deputy Director, objected to the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the petitioner had an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107(1) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, read with Rule 108 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017. The petitioner had approached the High Court directly instead of filing an appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court, given the existence of an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 107(1) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, read with Rule 108 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017? The petitioner argued that they had directly approached the High Court. The revenue contended that the writ petition was not maintainable because the petitioner had an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Rule 108 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The revenue argued that the petitioner should have availed this appellate route instead of directly filing a writ petition.