Gazebo Developers PVT LTD vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax Ludhiana And Ors

Held

The High Court held that the matter should first be decided by respondent No.1 before the Court could take a view. The Court reasoned that the petitioners had not yet approached the respondents with their claims. Therefore, the High Court disposed of the writ petitions with a direction to the petitioners to approach respondent No.1 with their claims within two weeks. Respondent No.1 was directed to pass a speaking order on the petitioners' claims within four weeks thereafter. The ratio of this decision is that statutory remedies must be exhausted before approaching the High Court in writ jurisdiction, especially when the initial adjudication by the concerned authority has not yet taken place. The Court did not decide on the merits of the attachment or the petitioners' ownership claims.

Facts

Two petitioners, Gazebo Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ripps Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., have filed writ petitions challenging the attachment of their properties. The petitioners claim to have purchased these properties from the actual defaulters. It is not disputed that the respondents have not yet passed any order addressing the petitioners' claims that their properties are not liable for attachment. The respondents' counsel stated that the petitioners have not yet approached the relevant authorities with their claims. The High Court noted that the matter should first be decided by the respondent No.1 (Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, Ludhiana, and Commissioner, Central Excise and Services Tax, Ludhiana, respectively) before the Court could adjudicate.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain the writ petitions challenging the attachment of property when the petitioners have not first approached the concerned revenue authorities with their claims and objections, as per Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and Section 112 of the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (PGST Act)? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that they are challenging the action of the respondents in attaching their properties, which they purchased from the actual defaulters. They are seeking relief from the High Court. Revenue's contention: The respondents pointed out that the petitioners have not yet approached the respondents with their claims regarding the attachment of their properties. The respondents contend that the statutory remedy available to the petitioners should be exhausted first.