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

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an equally efficacious alternative remedy of appeal before the Additional Commissioner, GST. The Court reasoned that the petitioner had rushed to the High Court without exhausting the statutory appeal mechanism. Following the precedent set by a Coordinate Division Bench in M/s Saraf Industries, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority, along with an application for condonation of delay. It was clarified that delay alone should not be a ground for rejection of the appeal on merits. The Appellate Authority was directed to consider the interim order dated January 21, 2020, passed in W.P. (C) No. 627/2020 and dispose of the appeal by way of a speaking order within eight weeks of its filing. No specific issue regarding the merits of the refund rejection was decided.

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 of the petitioner 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 should have exhausted this remedy before approaching the High Court. The respondent relied on a previous order of a Coordinate Division Bench in a similar case. The petitioner contended that no specific order on the merits of their case was passed, and sought to rely on an interim order from another case that was favorable to them.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that the impugned order was not a speaking order on merits and that a favorable interim order had been passed in a similar case, suggesting a potential for relief. They also sought to rely on an interim order from M/s Pitambra Books Pvt. Ltd vs. UOI and Ors. (W.P. (C) No. 627/2020). The respondent contended that the opening page of the impugned order clearly indicated its appealability before the Additional Commissioner, GST. They argued that the petitioner had directly approached the High Court without exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal, which is impermissible. The respondent relied on the order in M/s Saraf Industries Through Sole Prop Sh Akhil Saraf v/s Assistant Commissioner Division Narela GST Delhi North (W.P. (C) No. 4338/2020).