Kapil Chugh vs. Additional Commissioner, Central GST And Central Excise, Agra
Held
The Court held that since the petitioner had already availed the statutory remedy of appeal against the Order-In-Original passed under Section 122 of the C.G.S.T. Act, 2017, the High Court should not entertain the present writ petition. The principle is that a dual remedy should not be offered. The Court reasoned that the existence of a statutory appeal mechanism is sufficient to address the grievances of the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of availability of the statutory remedy. The Court explicitly left open the petitioner's option to press their statutory appeal.
Facts
The petitioner, Kapil Chugh, filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court challenging an Order-In-Original dated May 26, 2023, passed under Section 122 of the C.G.S.T. Act, 2017. The respondent was the Additional Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise, Agra. The petitioner had already availed the statutory remedy of filing an appeal against the said order. The High Court noted that the petitioner had indeed filed an appeal.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available and has been availed by the petitioner, under Section 122 of the C.G.S.T. Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner had availed the statutory remedy of appeal against the Order-In-Original. The judgment does not record any specific argument from the petitioner regarding why the writ petition should be entertained despite the availability of the appellate remedy. Revenue's contention: The Revenue argued that since the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal available and has availed it, the writ petition should not be entertained. The judgment does not record any specific argument from the Revenue beyond this.
Sections Cited
Section 122
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:210304-DB Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 944 of 2023 Petitioner :- Kapil Chugh Respondent :- Additional Commissioner, Central Gst And Central Excise, Agra Counsel for Petitioner :- Suyash Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- Krishna Agarawal Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.
Heard Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Krishna Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent- Revenue.
Undisputedly, against the Order-In-Original dated 26.05.2023 passed under Section 122 of C.G.S.T. Act, 2017 the petitioner has remedy of filing an appeal. That remedy is stated to have been availed by the petitioner.
In view of such statement made, no dual remedy may be offered by entertaining the present writ petition.
Accordingly, leaving it open to the petitioner to press statutory appeal, the present writ petition is dismissed on the ground of statutory remedy as may be available. Order Date :- 2.11.2023 SK Srivastava (Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.).. . . (S.D. Singh,J.) SAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad SAILESH KUMAR SRI
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.