M/S Goyal Colour Lab vs. Assistant Commissioner

CW/18137/2022HC RajasthanGSTCNR RJHC02096304202220 May 2025Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,MUKESH RAJPUROHIT (V. J.)2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Goyal Colour Lab, filed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order dated March 28, 2022. The respondents are various authorities under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act. The case was listed on March 28, 2025, where the petitioner's counsel sought an adjournment, which was opposed by the respondent's counsel, who highlighted the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal. The Court noted that the petitioner's submission was that 'call book matters cannot be revived after a decade'. The Court observed that a statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner and no case was made out for exercising writ jurisdiction.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable because a statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner. The Court reasoned that the petitioner's argument regarding 'call book matters cannot be revived after a decade' does not override the existence of a clear statutory appeal mechanism. The Court found no grounds to exercise its writ jurisdiction in this case, as the petitioner has not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances or lack of an effective alternative remedy. The ratio decidendi is that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when a statutory appeal remedy is available and no compelling reasons are shown for deviation. The Court dismissed the writ petition, relegating the petitioner to the statutory remedy of appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when a statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, as per Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that 'call book matters cannot be revived after a decade', implying that the adjudication order pertains to a stale or time-barred issue, thus warranting invocation of writ jurisdiction. The petitioner did not explicitly rely on any specific provision or precedent to support this argument, beyond the general principle of not reviving old matters. The respondent contended that a statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner and that the writ petition is therefore not maintainable. They argued that the Court should not exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction when a clear and effective alternative remedy exists.

Sections Cited

Section 107

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[2025:RJ-JP:21188-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18137/2022 M/s Goyal Colour Lab, (Partnership Firm), 158-159, Nehru Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.), Thorugh Its Partner Sh. Brij Kishore Goyal. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax, Division -E, Pali, Ground Floor, Tdm Office Campus, Bsnl, Mahavir Nagar, Pali - 306401 (Raj.) 2. Deputy Commissioner, Central Goods And Service Tax, Division-E, Pali, Ground Floor, Tdm Office Campus, Bsnl, Mahavir Nagar, Pali - 306401 (Raj.) 3. Additional Commissioner Of Central Excise, Central Excise Commissionerate- Ii, Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Javed Khan, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Shukla, Adv. with Mr. Raghav Sharma & Mr. Pushpendra Badgoti HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order 20/05/2025

This petition is filed challenging the adjudication order dated 28.03.2022 Annexure-1 annexed with the petition.

On 28.03.2025 the following order was passed:- “A request for adjournment is made on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner is opposed by counsel for the respondent stating that there is a statutory remedy of appeal available. In the interest of justice, put up on 04.04.2025 at the top of the cause-list.”

[2025:RJ-JP:21188-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-18137/2022]

The submission by learned counsel for the petitioner is that call book matters cannot be revived after a decade.

The petitioner has statutory remedy of appeal and no case is made out for exercising writ juri iction.

The writ petition is dismissed relegating the petitioner to remedy of appeal. (MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J GAURAV /48

Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.