M/S Alaya International Private Limited vs. The Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Alaya International Private Limited, filed multiple writ petitions challenging various orders passed by customs and GST authorities. These orders pertained to the clearance of Bills of Entry for used and new goods. The petitioner sought to clear goods based on FOB values at the prevailing USD exchange rate at the time of filing the Bills of Entry, using self-raised invoices. The authorities re-evaluated old used goods as new goods, disregarding original bills and SEZ approvals. The petitioner argued that these actions were contrary to the Customs Act, 1962, and the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, and violated constitutional provisions. The impugned orders included Orders-in-Original and Orders-in-Appeal passed by respondents 3, 4, and 5. The tax periods are not explicitly stated, but the Bills of Entry date back to 2018 and 2020.
Held
The High Court held that while writ petitions may be maintainable, they are not automatically required to be entertained, especially when an effective alternative remedy is available. The Court distinguished the Whirlpool Corporation judgment, stating that a mere breach of the principles of natural justice is not sufficient ground to entertain a writ petition. Something more must be established, such as a palpable injustice or a challenge to the competence of the authority. The Court noted that the petitioner had not raised arguments about the competence of any authority and could not demonstrate that availing the statutory remedy would cause palpable injustice. Citing recent Supreme Court pronouncements, the Court emphasized that High Courts should ordinarily not entertain writ petitions if an effective remedy is available, particularly in matters involving recovery of public dues, as such legislations provide a comprehensive procedure and quasi-judicial bodies for grievance redressal. Therefore, the Court declined to entertain the writ petitions due to the availability of an alternative remedy.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should entertain writ petitions challenging orders passed by customs and GST authorities when an effective alternative remedy is available under the statute, particularly in matters involving recovery of public dues? (Article 226 of the Constitution of India). The petitioner argued that the petitions were maintainable and should be entertained due to a breach of the principles of natural justice, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Whirlpool Corporation. The revenue/State contended that while petitions might be maintainable, they are not necessarily required to be entertained, especially when alternative remedies exist, and that a mere breach of natural justice is insufficient without something more going to the root of the matter or assailing the competence of the authority. They relied on Supreme Court judgments in U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. and PHR Invent Educational Society.
Sections Cited
Section 12, Section 17 (2), Section 111 of The Customs Act, 1962, Second Proviso to Section 26, Section 27 (7) of The Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, Article 226 of the Constitution of India
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER
THE HON'BLE THEACTING CIIIEF JUSTICD SUJOY PAUL AND THE HOIY'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RT![UI(A YARA UIRIT PETITIOil Nos.465, 481 and 53Q of 2O25 COMMON ORDER: (Per tle Hon'ble the Adirq CNef Justie :;uhg Paul) Sri K. R. Sasidharan Nair, learned counsel representing Sri Kuthuru Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel lbr the petitioner and Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Stan.ding Counsel for CBIC for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to 7. 2. Regard being had to the similitude of the qrtestions involved, on the joint request, these matters were analogously heard on admission.
The facts are taken from W.P.No.465 of 2025. In this petition, the challenge is mounted to the appe.llate orcier dated 26.06.2024, u'hereby the Order-in-Original No.6ri of 20 19, dated 05.09.20 1 9 was affirmed.
Learnecl counsel for the petitioner submits that although there exists a statutory alternative remedy uncler the Customs Act, 1962, to prefer an appeal before the Tribun,al, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported 1n Whirlp/ool
2 Corporatioa v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbail, the Writ Petition is very much maintainable, more so, when principles of natural justice were grossly violated. 5. karned Standing Counsel for CBIC submits that the petitioner has an effrcacious statutory alternative remedy. He further submits that these petitions have not been frled within the statutory time limit prescribed to approach the Tribunal and therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CTl LTU' Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd.z, the Writ Petitions can'not be entertained.
Heard the parties at length. 7 . This is not in dispute that the petitioner had a statutory efficacious alternative remedy to assail the appellate order dated 26.06.2024 before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in WLirlpool Corporation (supra) submits that if the I (1998) 8 SCC I , l2o2ol t9 scc 681 t'
3 principles of natural justice maintainable. r (2023) I SCC 443 ' (2o05) 8 scc 261 violated, the Writ Pelition is are 8.Inourconsideredopinion,therecannotbeanyquarrelon the question of 'maintainability' of the petition' 'Ihe difference of 'maintainability' and 'entertainability' is conside r'zd in exterso by the Supreme Court rn the case M/s' Gci&eJ Sara Lee Ltd' v' E:rcise and Taxation Olfrcer - cum - Assess'ing Authority3 ' Every petition, which is maintainable' as a cornpulsion' is not required to be entertained' The singular argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner to entertain these pdtions is that the principtes of natural justice were breac"hed and thus' in view of the judgment of the Supreme Corut in Whirlpool Corporation (supra), these petitions can be entertained' Whirlpoot Corlrcration (suPra)
The judgment ln subsequentlY considered bY the Supreme Court in U.P' State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S' Pande5f and it was held as under:- was " 17 . . .. But normally, the High Court 'should not entertain writ petitions unless it is shown that there is ,ometiri.tg moie in a case, something going to the.root "i'iit" t"ii"aiction of the officer, sometlLing which would shou' that it would be a case c'f palpable )
4 injustice to the writ petitioner to force him to adopt the remedies provided by the statute...."
In the aforesajd judgment, the previous judgment was distinguished and it was made clear that mere breach of principles of natural justice will not be sufficient to entertain a petition, Something more must be established which goes to the root of the matter or assails the question of competence of the authority itself. The petitioner has raised no argument about the competence of any authority. karned counsel for the petitioner also could not point out that if the petitioner would have availed the remedy before the Tribunal, it wor:-ld have caused any palpa{e injustice to the petitioner. 1 l. Recently, the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 1O.O4.2O24 in the case of PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Banks, disapproved the order of Telangana High Court in W.P.No.5275 of 2021, dated 04.02.2022, wherein a Division Bench of this Court entertained a Writ Petition, despite availability of alternative remedy. The Supreme Court opined that merely because a petition is maintainable, it is not necessary to entertain '(202r) 4 Sr.R. 54 r
5 a petition. It is the discretion of the Court to entertain a petition and not a compulsion. The relevant paragraph reads as under: " 1 5. It could thus be seen that, this 'lourt has clearly held that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved Person. It has been held that this rule applies with greater rigour ln matters involving recoYery of texes, cess. fees, other types of public rnoney and the ducs of bankr and other frnancial institutious. The Court clearly observed that, white dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public . dues, etc., the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not onllr contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of tht: dues but 'r also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of aly aggrieved person. It has been held that, though the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution are of widest amplitu<le, still the Courts cannot bt: oblivious of the rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by this Court- The Court further held that though tJ:e rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule qf discretion and not one of comoulsion. sHll it is difiicult to fathom any reeaon why the High Court should entertain a petition filed uader Article 226 of the Constitution." (Emphasis Supplied)
Thus, mere violation of principles of natural justice cannot be a ground to entertain a Petition t I I I
6
In view of availability of alternative remedy, the Writ Petitions are not entertained and accordingly, disposed of' The petitioner may avail the alternative remedy. No order as to costs' Miscellaneous petitions pending, il any, shall stand closed' . P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASS T T REGISTRAR //// S CTION OFFICER to ,. ,n" Directorate General of Goods and Services.Tax' (DGGST)' Ministry of FinanceDepartment,ir-ii""""'Jlin-rFi''llII^L'TdlephoneExchanse' blrtiii;il 5' -dr',iraii cama Place, New Delhi - 1 10066' 2 The Secretary, unron'oi i"i[,'rtili"ittl of Cornmerce and lndustry' New Delhi' 5.ili?:fu r']:Hti?1"*:,1"1{^"""*'11',lgtff ffi#'iJx'331'no#o'nn ivJerabad-500004, Telanoana State' +. rtE?i;Eipr"r c"#i!!i;liE';iC;E"t' GSr Bhavan' L'B stadium Road' - e';ii""ibisn, Hvderabad-500004' TelanganaState' 5. rhe Add ition, I co*,.'ii!!io iJi"iitit#t] -t1yqe.ra bad G ST B hava n' L' B " iftffi ii;ad, basheerbas, Hvderabad-5000-04 6 The Deputv corn.i,tiE'n""? qiiii'c.;!"i";; Depot' container corporatlon or ,f.':'#fl 1;:i;,:H'JJitghll',s3lto""#;"uo-nof .rndiaLimited,(A '33gL:,u*5,H,on""1',#in*:1ltr"mi'Hlixg'a'ii1tooo,,o"' Hvderabad - 500018 a TtE"o!rEl"pmlni c-ommissiner' Deputy D-evelopment Commissiner' visakhapatnam sp""iuiEl"""'ii 2bne'-suo omce 5th Floor' Parisrama B;-;;;;'B;th- e5sh'Ivo;"bad - 50000-4' Telanoana State' e one cc to snr xurLiAii"rifuirlben*nEbbv-pn'{rnp REDDY' Advocate .to 8I"'"% to sRl DoMlNlc FERNANDES' sen'or standing counsel for cBlc ,, to,l"ua? to sRt cADt PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dv' soLlclroR GENERAL oF INDIA [oPUC]
Two CD CoPies PSK, GJP C.".,
HIGH COURT DATED:2910112025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.465, 481 & 530 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS g\4 t31r-l"f ,k r He S r.1 14: 01 ulr)025 .' J ($( ; i/ i. t-. / . r - - -// \-'-y11 --')'z'
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.