M/S. Ramakrishna Medical Cloth And General Stores vs. Superintendent Of Central Tax
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. RamaKrishna Medical Cloth and General Stores, represented by its proprietor Sri Satyanarayan Gehlot, filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original (OIO) dated January 22, 2025, and a consequent demand raised in Form DRC-07 dated January 30, 2025. These were passed by the Superintendent of Central Tax, the first respondent. The petitioner argued that the OIO was illegal due to a violation of Section 73(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, and a breach of natural justice principles. The petitioner sought to declare the impugned order void, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, and to set it aside. An interim application was also filed to stay the collection of tax.
Held
The Court held that while the petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution, it is not 'entertainable' due to the availability of an effective alternative statutory remedy. Citing Supreme Court judgments in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey, and PHR Invent Educational Society Vs. UCO Bank and Others, the Court emphasized that High Courts should ordinarily not entertain writ petitions when an alternative remedy exists, especially in matters involving the recovery of taxes or public money. The Court found no palpable injustice that would warrant short-circuiting the statutory remedy. Therefore, the writ petition was not entertained, and liberty was reserved to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's arguments regarding Section 73(5) or natural justice.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Order-in-Original dated January 22, 2025, is void and illegal due to a violation of Section 73(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, concerning the replenishment of erroneously paid or short-paid tax? 2. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated in the passing of the impugned Order-in-Original? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the OIO is bad in law for two reasons: (i) it is ex facie illegal because, contrary to Section 73(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, the authorities did not seek replenishment of the remaining tax amount if tax was erroneously or short paid; and (ii) principles of natural justice were violated. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the Court's reasoning implies that the availability of an alternative statutory remedy was the primary basis for their stance.
Sections Cited
Section 73(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION No.15741 of 2o25 ORDERIPeT fhe Hon'ble the Acting Ctuef Justice Sujoy Paul): Sri G. Durga Charan, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. Pravalika, learned crunsel representing Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, for respondent No.1 and Ms. P. Subhashree, learned counsel representing Sri M. Vij ay Kumar, learned Stalding Counsel for Central Government, for respondent No.2
The challenge mounted in this petition Iiled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the Order-in-Original (OIO) dated 22.OL2O25. 3. Criticizing the impugned OIO, learned counsel for tlle petitioner submits that the said order is bad in law lor twin reasons-i) the order is ex facie illegal because in the teeth of Section 73(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, if the tax was erroneously paid or short paid, they could hav6 asked for the replenishmeirt of the remaining amount of tax an} ii) principles of natural justice were violated.
2
We have considered both the points. No doubt, in certain situations, a petition can be entertained despite availability of alternative remedy such as violation of principles of natural justice, uires of provision is called in question and order is passed by an incompetent authority. This principle was iaid down by the Supreme Court in.Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, .ltlumbair. However, the said judgment was again considered by the Supreme Court in U.p. State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S. pandey and Anotherz and it was opined as under:- " 17. ...But normallg, the High Court should. not entertain u.trit petitions unless it is shottn thot there is something more in a case, something going to the root of tLe jui iction of tLLe officer, qomething tahich uoutd shou.t thot it tuould be a case of palpable injustice to the utrit petitioner to force him to adopt the remedies prouided bg the statute. ...',
In the instant case, it is not argued that the impugned OIO is passed without authority of law or is passed by an incompetent authority. It is not shown, if the petitioner is relegated to avail the alternative remedy, it will cause any palpable injustice to it. ' (1998) 8 SCC 1 ' lzoos; s scc 264 1 maintainable, it is not necessary to entertain a petition' It is the discretion of the Court to entertain a petition and not a compulsion. The relevant paragraph reads thus:
"
It could thus be seen that, this Court has clearlg lrcId that the Htgh Court uill ordinarilg not entertain a petition under Article 226 oJ the Constitution if an eifectiae remedg is auailable to the aggrieoed person. It ho,s been held that this ntle applies usith greater rigour in matters inoolulnq recoaerll of trrxes. cess. fees. other tgpes of pubtic moneg dnd. the dues oJ banks and other finc;ncial institutions. The Court clearly obserued that, while dealing utith tte petitionS inuoluing challenge to the action taken for recouery of the public dues, etc., the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted bg Parliament and State Legislatures for recouery of such dues are a code unto themselues inasmuch as theg not only contain comprehensiue procedure for recouery of the dues but also enuisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the gieuance of ang aggrbued person. It has been held that, though the potuers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constihttion are of utidest omplitude, still the Courts cannot be obliuious of the rules of self-itnposed restraint euolued bg this Court. The Court further held that though the rule of exhaustion of alternatiue remedy I ( ( is a ntle of discretion and not ' (zozq) a s.c.R. s+t one of comoulsion, I
4 --- '- .1
Thus, even though the petition is maintainable, it cannot be said to be 'entertainabre" because of availab ity of statutory alternative remedy. No case is made out for short-circuiting the said alternative remedy and accordingly, this writ petition is not entertainable. Liberty is reseived to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy.
The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs Interlocutory applications, if aly pending, shall also osed stitl it is dfficult to Jathom ang reason whg the High Court should entertain a petition filed. under Article 226 of the Constitution.', (Emphasis Supplied) . A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT . REGTSTRAR l^ ,i \- rt SECION OFFICER
The Suoerintendent of central Tax, Mancherial Range, [t4ancherial Division, IMedchil Commissionerate z. ine Seiretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 1 10001 One CC to SRl. G. DURGA CHARAN, Advocate [OPUC] One CC io Shr. OOttttttlC FERNANDES (senior standing counsel for CBIC) tOPUCl One Cb to I. N/, VIJAY KUMAR, SC FOR CENTRAL GOVERNIVENT loPUCl Two CD Copies //// To, J. 4. 5. .6; B'ni. aF !/
\ HIGH COURT DATED:1210612025 ORDER 7'6 2 I AUG 2025 1t{ E S 14 (( o o., \ (. 4.e 1 Ja .-) f: ii 1 WP.No.15741 of 2025 ,+ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS o g /z ,//3
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.