M/S Continental Engines LTD. vs. The Commissioner Of Central Excise, And GST- Jaipur I

Facts

M/s Continental Engines Ltd. (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur, challenging an order dated 09.01.2023. The respondents were the Commissioner of Central Excise and GST-Jaipur I and the Joint Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Division-C, Alwar. During the course of arguments, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the order dated 09.01.2023 was under challenge by way of appeal. The Court noted that the said order was not under challenge in the present writ petition. The Court observed that the relief sought in the petition could not be granted unless the order dated 09.01.2023 was challenged. The petitioner was granted liberty to challenge the order dated 09.01.2023, but they had chosen to file an appeal against it, availing the ordinary remedy under the law. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable in its current form because the order dated 09.01.2023, which was the subject of the petition, was also being challenged through a regular appeal filed by the petitioner. The Court reasoned that the ordinary remedy of appeal under the law had been availed by the petitioner, and therefore, the relief sought in the writ petition could not be granted. The Court dismissed the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to raise the grounds mentioned in the writ petition by way of amendment in the pending appeal. The Court did not decide on the merits of the grounds raised by the petitioner, as the petition was dismissed on procedural grounds.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the order under challenge is also being contested through an appeal, which is the ordinary remedy available under the law? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the writ petition was the appropriate forum to seek relief. However, during the proceedings, it was revealed that the petitioner had also filed an appeal against the same order dated 09.01.2023. Revenue's Contention: The respondents, through their counsel, implicitly argued that the writ petition was not maintainable or that the relief could not be granted in the writ petition because the petitioner had already chosen to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order. The Court's observation that the relief sought could not be granted unless the order was challenged, and the subsequent dismissal based on the petitioner's choice to file an appeal, indicates the Court's stance on the procedural propriety.