Flowserve INDIA Controls PVT LTD Thro Its Authorised Signatory Ashish Kumar vs. Central Goods And Service Tax And Central Excise Thro Its Principal Commissioner

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy of appeal. It granted liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer an appeal before the appellate forum, raising all points, if an appeal had not already been preferred. The Court directed the concerned authority to decide the appeal, if preferred, in accordance with the law. The reasoning was based on the established principle that writ petitions are generally not entertained when an effective alternative remedy is available. The Court did not decide on the merits of the penalty imposed or the legality of the detention of goods and conveyance. The ratio decidendi is that statutory remedies must be exhausted before approaching the writ court, unless exceptional circumstances warrant otherwise.

Facts

The petitioner, Flowserve India Controls Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated April 9, 2024, imposing a penalty of Rs. 49,43,614 under Section 129(1)(a) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner sought to quash this order, release of detained goods and conveyance, and a stay on confiscation proceedings. The respondents, represented by the Central GST authorities, submitted that a coordinate bench had previously disposed of a similar writ petition on the grounds of alternative remedy, directing the petitioner to appeal. The petitioner agreed to this course of action, requesting disposal of the current petition with liberty to appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner's counsel did not argue on the merits of the penalty order but agreed to avail the alternative remedy of appeal. The respondent revenue authorities argued that the writ petition should not be entertained due to the availability of the alternative appellate remedy, citing a previous order of a coordinate bench in a similar case (W.P.(T) No. 4574 of 2021). They relied on the principle that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and should not be exercised when an effective alternative remedy exists.