M/S.Abhishek Enterprises Through Its Proprietor Mr. Santosh Mourya vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The primary reason for dismissal was the existence of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal before the Commissioner, CGST, as clearly indicated in the order in original itself. The Court relied on the Apex Court's consistent view that writ petitions should not be entertained in tax matters when an effective alternative remedy is available. While the petitioner argued about the expiry of the limitation period for appeal, the Court acknowledged this and stated that the petitioner was entitled to relaxation of the period from 09.05.2025 till the date of the order. However, this relaxation was granted in the context of dismissing the writ petition, implying that the petitioner could still approach the appellate authority within the relaxed timeframe. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the imposition of liability.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Abhishek Enterprises, through its proprietor Mr. Santosh Mourya, filed a writ petition challenging an order in original dated 27.03.2025. This order imposed joint and several liability for taxes and penalty on seven noticees. The petitioner argued that it was merely a job worker for M/s. Rainy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and the entire liability was wrongly imposed upon it, as the principal manufacturer should have been held responsible. The revenue contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as an alternative remedy of appeal before the Commissioner, CGST was available, citing Supreme Court judgments. The petitioner further submitted that the limitation period to file an appeal had expired since the writ petition was filed on 09.05.2025 and was being heard for admission on 13.08.2025.

Key Issues

1. Whether a writ petition is maintainable before the High Court when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner under the CGST Act, as per the contentions of the revenue, citing Apex Court judgments. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to relaxation of the period of limitation to file an appeal before the appellate authority, given the delay in approaching the court and the subsequent expiry of the appeal period, as argued by the petitioner. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the liability was wrongly imposed upon it as a job worker and should have been directed at the principal manufacturer. It also argued that the limitation period for filing an appeal had expired due to the time taken for the writ petition to be heard for admission. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue argued that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the existence of an alternative remedy of appeal before the Commissioner, CGST, citing numerous Apex Court judgments. It was also argued that since multiple noticees were involved and a common order was passed, the High Court could not entertain a writ petition filed by only one noticee, especially when other noticees might have the option to appeal.