Nik Cool A Partnership Firm Through Partner Nakul Baheti Mr. Nakul Baheti vs. The Assistant Commissioner CGST And Central Excise Division

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. It relied on several Supreme Court judgments, including Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Private Limited Vs. Union of India, Hameed Kunju vs. Nazim, and Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, which emphasize the importance of availing statutory appeal remedies when provided. The Court specifically addressed the petitioner's contention regarding the lack of personal hearing, finding it contrary to the record. Perusal of paragraph 17 of the impugned order indicated that opportunities for virtual hearings were provided on 28.11.2024, 13.12.2024, 20.12.2024, and 27.12.2024, but neither the petitioner nor their authorized representative attended. Therefore, the claim of non-grant of personal hearing was rejected. The Court concluded that no disputed question of law was involved, and the petitioner's argument regarding the violation of natural justice was unsubstantiated. Consequently, the Court did not find it proper to entertain the writ petition. The petitioner was granted liberty to avail the alternative remedy of appeal, if advised, and to raise all grounds raised in the writ petition before the appellate authority. The writ petition was disposed of with this liberty.

Facts

The petitioner, Nik Cool A Partnership Firm, filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging an order dated 31.12.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner CGST and Central Excise Division. This order-in-original confirmed demands proposed in a show cause notice and rejected the petitioner's responses. The High Court, at the outset, questioned the maintainability of the writ petition given the availability of an efficacious statutory alternative remedy of appeal under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioner contended that the writ petition was maintainable because no personal hearing was granted. The Court examined various Supreme Court judgments on the availability of alternative remedies.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable when an efficacious statutory alternative remedy of appeal under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is available to the petitioner? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the writ petition was maintainable because they were not granted an opportunity for a personal hearing, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and others. Revenue's Contention: The respondent did not explicitly present arguments on the maintainability of the writ petition. However, the Court's query and subsequent reliance on Supreme Court judgments indicate an implicit contention that the statutory remedy should be exhausted. The Court also noted that the Supreme Court in The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and others Vs. M/s Commercial Steel Limited held that a writ petition can only be entertained in exceptional circumstances like breach of fundamental rights, violation of principles of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or challenge to the vires of a statute, none of which were established in this case.