M/S Malikarjun Constructions PVT LTD vs. The Union Of INDIA Through The Secretary And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Malikarjun Constructions Pvt. Ltd., invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. They challenged a notice dated December 31, 2020, an order passed by the Commissioner, Goods and Services Tax dated July 28, 2022, and a subsequent order dated May 23, 2023, which rejected their application for rectification. The respondents were the Union of India and another authority.

Held

The Court held that its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be exercised in this case. The reasoning was based on the admitted availability of a statutory appellate remedy under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, before the Appellate Tribunal. The Court found no inclination to entertain the writ petition. The ratio decidendi is that where a clear and efficacious statutory remedy exists, the High Court should ordinarily relegate the parties to that remedy. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to invoke the appellate remedy. The Appellate Tribunal was directed to consider and decide the appeal expeditiously, within three months.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging a notice and subsequent orders when a statutory appellate remedy is available under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994? The petitioner contended that the High Court's writ jurisdiction should be exercised. The respondents, through their counsel, implicitly argued that the statutory remedy should be pursued. No specific arguments were recorded for either side beyond the invocation of the writ jurisdiction and the existence of the appellate remedy.