M/S Rahul Agency vs. Commissioner (Appelas)
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Rahul Agency, through its proprietor Vijay Soni, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur. The petition challenged an order dated 18.03.2021 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central GST, Central Excise and Service Tax, Raipur. The Commissioner (Appeals) had held the petitioner's appeal to be barred by time. The respondents, represented by Shri Maneesh Sharma, argued that the impugned order was appealable under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, and therefore, an alternative statutory remedy existed. The Court did not delve into the merits of the case.
Held
The High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable at this stage due to the existence of an alternative statutory remedy. The Court reasoned that the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was appealable under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, the petitioner should avail the statutory remedy of appeal provided under the Act. The Court disposed of the writ petition without entering into the merits of the case, explicitly reserving the petitioner's right to pursue the statutory appeal. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts generally do not entertain writ petitions when an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved party.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994? Petitioner's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the petitioner regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or against the existence of an alternative remedy. The petitioner approached the High Court via a writ petition. Respondents' Argument: The respondents contended that the order impugned is appealable as per the provisions prescribed under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, and since there is an alternative statutory remedy provided in the said Act, the High Court should not entertain the writ petition at this stage.
Sections Cited
Section 85, Section 86
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPT No. 244 of 2021 M/s Rahul Agency Through Its Proprietor Vijay Soni, S/o Late Indradeo Soni, Aged About 56 Years, Gulmohar, Shastri Ward, Mayapur, District Ambikapur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus
Commissioner (Appelas) Central GST, Central Excise And Service Tax, Raipur Chhattisgarh
Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Central Excise And Service Tax, Raipur Chhattisgarh
Principal Commissioner, Central Tax, Central Excise, Gst Building, Dhamtari Road, Tikrapara, Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents ______________________________________________________________ For Petitioner: Shri B.D.Guru, Advocate. For Respondents: Shri Maneesh Sharma, Advocate on advance copy. Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, J Order On Board 07/12/2021
By way of this petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 18.03.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.1, i.e., Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 (henceforth, 'Act of 1994') holding it to be barred by time.
At the outset, it is contended by Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the res
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 Chhattisgarh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.