M/S Sachin Enterprises Through Sole Prop. Sh Sachin Bansal vs. Assistant Commissioner Division-Narela

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had an equally alternate and efficacious remedy of preferring an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, GST. Citing a coordinate bench's order in M/s Saraf Industries, the Court was not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. The Court disposed of the petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to seek its remedies before the Appellate Authority, including filing an application for condonation of delay. The Court clarified that delay alone would not be a ground for rejection of the appeal on merits. The Appellate Authority was permitted to consider the interim order dated January 21, 2020, passed in W.P. (C) No. 627/2020 and was directed to dispose of the appeal by way of a speaking order within eight weeks of its filing.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sachin Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated September 19, 2019, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Division-Narela, under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The refund application was rejected on the grounds that it involved multiple tax periods. The respondent argued that the impugned order was appealable before the Additional Commissioner, GST, and the petitioner had directly approached the High Court without exhausting the available appellate remedy. The petitioner contended that the order was passed in a batch of refund applications and no specific order on the merits of their case was made, also referencing a favorable interim order from another writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, having an alternate efficacious remedy of appeal before the Additional Commissioner, GST, is precluded from directly filing a writ petition before this Court challenging the order of the Assistant Commissioner rejecting its refund application, particularly when the impugned order itself indicates its appealability? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The impugned order was passed in a batch of refund applications without specific consideration of the petitioner's case on merits. The petitioner also sought to rely on an interim order from a coordinate bench in a similar matter, suggesting a favorable view towards their position. Respondent's arguments: The opening page of the impugned order clearly states that it is appealable before the Additional Commissioner, GST. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have exhausted this statutory remedy before approaching the High Court, citing a coordinate bench's order in M/s Saraf Industries.