M/S Kcc Dhangaon Boregaon Expressway Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The petitioner had effectively participated in the proceedings before the competent authority, and a final order had been passed. Therefore, the petitioner could not challenge the validity of the show cause notice or the audit report by bypassing the statutory remedy of appeal. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in "State of Maharashtra & Others v/s Greatship (India) Limited," which held that High Courts err in entertaining writ petitions against assessment orders when statutory remedies are available. The Court reasoned that judicial prudence dictates that courts refrain from exercising jurisdiction under constitutional provisions when an alternate remedy exists. Consequently, the High Court ought to have relegated the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s KCC Dhangaon Boregaon Expressway Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging the final audit report (Form GST ADT-02) dated 29.07.2025, show cause-cum-demand notices (Form GST DRC-01) dated 27.06.2025/18.08.2025, and a demand order (Form GST DRC-07) dated 16.10.2025. These actions were taken by respondents 4 to 6, following an audit initiated by respondent 7 for the period 2020-21 to 2022-23. The audit resulted in a proposed demand of Rs. 23,70,92,340/-, which was later confirmed as Rs. 30,52,42,718/- by the Joint Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Bhopal. The petitioner argued that these actions were time-barred and violated principles of natural justice and statutory provisions. Despite having an alternate remedy of first appeal, the petitioner approached the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, despite the existence of an alternate statutory remedy of appeal, given the alleged gross violation of law, principles of natural justice, abuse of process, and violation of circulars and policies by the revenue authorities? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the writ petition is maintainable because the impugned orders were passed in gross violation of law, principles of natural justice, and constituted an abuse of process. They argued that a pure question of law or interpretation was involved, citing various Supreme Court judgments to support the High Court's power to entertain writ petitions even when alternate remedies exist, particularly in cases of jurisdictional error or violation of fundamental rights. They relied on "M/s Shree Bhawani Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and another" and numerous other Supreme Court precedents. Revenue's Arguments: The respondent did not explicitly record arguments regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. However, the Court's decision was based on the principle that statutory remedies should generally be exhausted first.