Rajendra Engineering Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Rajendra Engineering Company, challenged an order of adjudication dated 16th September, 2021, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Bowbazar Charge (Respondent No. 2). This order was passed pursuant to a previous order of the High Court dated 23rd August, 2021, in WPA 11796 of 2021. The petitioner contended that the adjudication order was flawed. The State was represented by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Bowbazar Charge, and others. The Court noted that the impugned order was appealable under Section 107 of the West Bengal GST Act.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The primary reason for this decision was the availability of a statutory alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the West Bengal GST Act. The Court observed that the impugned order was an appealable order. Furthermore, the Court found that the case did not present any exceptional circumstances that would warrant bypassing the statutory appeal mechanism. These exceptions typically include violations of the principles of natural justice, inherent lack of jurisdiction by the authority, the order being non-speaking, or a challenge to the constitutional validity of a legal provision. Since none of these conditions were met, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition on its merits. However, to provide some relief, the Court directed that if the petitioner files an appeal within 15 days, the Appellate Authority should consider the issue of limitation leniently.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available under Section 107 of the West Bengal GST Act? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought to challenge the adjudication order through a writ petition. Revenue's contention: The State argued that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the West Bengal GST Act. The State relied on the principle that writ petitions should not be entertained when an efficacious alternative remedy exists. The Court also noted that the case did not fall under exceptions where a writ might be entertained, such as violations of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, non-speaking orders, or challenges to constitutional validity.