M/S Benetton INDIA Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA And Others
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Benetton India Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The petition challenged an order passed by the Joint Commissioner. The respondents were the Union of India and others. The judgment does not specify the tax period or the amount in dispute. The procedural history indicates that a writ petition was filed directly before the High Court.
Held
The Court held that it would not entertain the present writ petition. The reasoning was based on the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy, specifically an appeal provided under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court cited the law laid down by the Apex Court in M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and others, which emphasizes the importance of exhausting statutory remedies. The Court found that the question raised in the petition could not be characterized as purely a legal one, thus justifying the dismissal of the writ petition in favour of the appellate process. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition. The Court also directed that if an appeal is preferred by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority, it shall be decided expeditiously. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal is available under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner, M/s Benetton India Private Limited, likely argued that the present case involves a purely legal question that warrants direct intervention by the High Court, bypassing the appellate mechanism. The respondents, Union of India and others, likely contended that the existence of a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act provides an adequate and effective remedy, and therefore, the writ petition should not be entertained. The respondents relied on the Apex Court's decision in M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and others.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
CWP-15440-2024 (O&M)
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
117
CWP-15440-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 17.07.2024 M/s Benetton India Private Limited
…Petitioner Versus Union of India and others
…Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: - Mr. Pawan Kumar Pahwa, Advocate and Mr. Hrithik Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Suman Jain, Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC- respondents
***
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral)
Admittedly, an appeal lies under Section 107 of Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017 before the Appellate Authority against the impugned order passed by Joint Commissioner.
Keeping in view the law laid down by Apex Court in M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and others, 2023 AIR (Supreme Court) 781, we do not propose to entertain the present petition on the ground that there is an efficacious alternative remedy as it cannot be said that the question raised herein is purely a legal one. MOHIT KUMAR 2024.07.17 1
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.