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. The Court also took into account the Petitioner's allegations of harassment against a Respondent official, the official's denial through a personal affidavit, and the separate police complaint and civil suit instituted by the Petitioner. 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 directed 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 remained pending, the Appellate Authority should consider it in accordance with law. No specific issue was left undecided; the petitions were disposed of by directing the Petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy.

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 the allegations. The Petitioner had also lodged a police complaint and instituted a civil suit regarding these grievances. The Respondent is the Union of India and other authorities.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain writ 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 by way of writ petitions, likely seeking an alternative remedy to the statutory appeal process, possibly due to the allegations of harassment and the involvement of disputed facts. The Petitioner sought to raise all grounds before the Appellate Authority. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued, implicitly through the Court's decision, that the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act was the appropriate recourse given the disputed questions of fact.