Dalip Kapoor vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Held

The High Court held that both orders dated 31.01.2025 and 27.01.2025 were appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The Court noted that highly disputed questions of fact were involved in both writ petitions. Furthermore, the Petitioner had raised allegations of harassment against a specific official, which were denied by the official through a personal affidavit, and the Petitioner had also pursued separate remedies like a police complaint and a civil suit for these grievances. Consequently, the Court relegated the Petitioner to the statutory remedy of appeal. The Petitioner was permitted to raise all grounds before the Appellate Authority, which was directed to decide the appeal in accordance with the law. The Court also observed that if the Petitioner filed an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for exclusion of the period during which the writ petitions were pending, the Appellate Authority should consider it.

Facts

The Petitioner, Dalip Kapoor, filed two writ petitions before the Delhi High Court. In W.P.(C) 5599/2025, the Petitioner challenged a Show Cause Notice and an order dated 31.01.2025 passed under Section 74(9) of the CGST Act. In W.P.(C) 6383/2025, the Petitioner challenged a Show Cause Notice and an order dated 27.01.2025. The Petitioner also alleged harassment of his son by a Respondent official, who filed a personal affidavit denying these allegations. The Petitioner had also lodged a police complaint and filed a civil suit concerning these grievances.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, should entertain petitions challenging orders that are appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act, especially when highly disputed questions of fact are involved? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner approached the High Court under its writ jurisdiction, likely seeking to bypass the appellate remedy due to the nature of the grievances, which included alleged harassment. The Petitioner sought to raise all grounds before the High Court. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the orders passed were appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act, and given the disputed questions of fact, the statutory remedy of appeal should be pursued.