Smt. Archana Mishra (In Person) vs. The Superintendent

Facts

The petitioner, Smt. Archana Mishra (Trade Name Shree Agro Tech), filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. The petition challenged two ex-parte orders dated August 31, 2023, and December 25, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Superintendent, Central GST & Central Excise, respectively, for the Financial Year 2017-18. The petitioner sought to set aside these orders, quash the demand of tax, interest, and penalty, and secure the release of Rs. 6,72,000/- frozen by Canara Bank on the basis of a letter from the Assistant Commissioner. The petitioner claimed to be a small entrepreneur suffering from serious diseases and needing the funds for medical expenses. The revenue, represented by Ms. Shruti Pramar, argued that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy of filing an appeal.

Held

The Court noted that the revenue's counsel submitted that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy of filing an appeal. The authorized representative for the petitioner then submitted that the petition could be disposed of by reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to avail the aforesaid remedy. In light of these submissions, the Court disposed of the writ petition. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal within a period of 30 days from the date of the order. It was further clarified that if an appeal is filed within the stipulated time, the concerned appellate authority would not insist upon the limitation period and would decide the appeal on its own merits in accordance with the law. The Court did not decide on the merits of the ex-parte orders or the demand, nor did it pass any specific order regarding the release of the frozen amount, as the petition was disposed of on the ground of alternative remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Hon'ble Court, given the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned orders? 2. Whether the ex-parte orders dated 31.08.2023 and 25.12.2023, and the consequent demand of tax, interest, and penalty, are liable to be set aside or modified? 3. Whether the frozen amount of Rs. 6,72,000/- should be released to the petitioner? Contentions of the Petitioner: The petitioner sought to set aside the ex-parte orders and quash the demand, arguing that they were illegal. They also prayed for the immediate release of the frozen amount, highlighting their status as a small entrepreneur with serious medical conditions. The petitioner, through their authorized representative, also requested that the petition be disposed of with liberty to avail the alternative remedy. Contentions of the Revenue (Respondents No. 1 & 2): The revenue contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner possessed an efficacious alternative remedy of filing an appeal against the impugned orders. They did not argue on the merits of the ex-parte orders or the demand at this stage.