M. Thiyagarajan vs. The Assistant Commisssioner Of GST And C Excise

Facts

The petitioner, M. Thiyagarajan, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an Order in Original No. 17/2024-GST dated 25.04.2024, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of GST and C. Excise, Thanjavur Division. The petitioner sought to quash this order, contending it was passed without jurisdiction and in violation of statutory provisions. The respondent is the Assistant Commissioner of GST and C. Excise. The tax period is not specified. The petitioner admitted to not having filed returns. The impugned order was passed on 25.04.2024. The procedural history involves the filing of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The primary reason for this decision was the existence of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Rule 109 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The Court noted that the petitioner had not filed returns and had only raised contentions on the merits of the order, without demonstrating any exceptional circumstances that would warrant invoking the writ jurisdiction. The Court referred to the parameters set by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and others vs. Commercial Steel Limited, and found that the petitioner had not made out a case falling within those parameters. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. However, considering the petitioner's medical condition (diagnosed with cancer in 2021) and the fact that the time for filing the appeal had expired, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority on or before 10.01.2025. The appellate authority was directed to take the appeal on file without insisting on the period of limitation and to pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Rule 109 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, is available to the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner has made out a case for entertaining the writ petition, considering the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and others vs. Commercial Steel Limited? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction and in clear violation of statutory provisions. The petitioner did not explicitly argue on the maintainability of the writ petition but focused on the merits of the order. The petitioner relied on the case of Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and others vs. Commercial Steel Limited to support the grounds for entertaining a writ petition. Respondent's Contentions: The respondent, through the Standing Counsel, implicitly argued for the dismissal of the writ petition by highlighting the availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal and the petitioner's failure to meet the criteria for entertaining a writ petition.