M/S Godrej Agrovet Limited Igc Samba Th Vishal Digra vs. Union Of INDIA Th Ministry Of Finance Deptt Of Revenue And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Godrej Agrovet Limited, sought quashment of Notification No. 21/2017 CE dated 18.07.2017, which rescinded Notification No. 1/2010 CE without saving provisions for filing applications for fixation of a special rate of actual value addition. They also challenged an order dated 03.05.2023 by the Commissioner, CGST Comm’rate Jammu, which dismissed their application for this benefit for the period April 2017 to June 2017, deeming it time-barred. The petitioner aimed to obtain a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to allow the benefit. The petitioner's application was filed on 08.02.2023, and the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner, CGST Comm’rate Jammu.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The primary reason was the existence of an alternate efficacious remedy under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which allows an appeal to the CESTAT against an order passed by the Commissioner. The Court noted that the petitioner themselves admitted in paragraph 19 of the writ petition that the order was appealable. The Court found the petitioner's submission that they were only challenging the vires of the notification unconvincing, as the petition explicitly sought the quashment of the impugned order. Citing Supreme Court judgments in Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan and CCT, Orissa v. Indian Explosives Ltd., the Court emphasized that judicial prudence dictates refraining from exercising writ jurisdiction when an alternate statutory remedy is available. The Court also observed that the orders cited by the petitioner were passed in different factual circumstances and were therefore not applicable. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable against the impugned order dated 03.05.2023, considering the availability of an alternate efficacious remedy under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944? The petitioner argued that they were challenging the vires of Notification No. 21/2017 CE, which rescinded Notification No. 1/2010 CE, and that the impugned order relied on this rescinded notification. They also referred to orders from the Jammu & Kashmir High Court and Gauhati High Court in similar matters. The respondents contended that the impugned order did not suffer from any legal infirmity and that the petitioner had an alternate efficacious remedy, making the present petition not maintainable. They relied on pronouncements of the Supreme Court emphasizing the exhaustion of alternate remedies.