N.R. Fibres vs. The Commissioner

Held

The Court held that while it has the power to entertain writ petitions even when an alternate remedy exists, this power must be exercised with great circumspection. The Court must identify an extraordinary cause for interference, such as an adversity not amenable to subsequent correction, failure of natural justice, legislative or jurisdictional incompetence of the authority, or jurisprudential incompetence. The Court found that none of these extraordinary circumstances existed in the present case. The petitioner had not established why the alternate remedy was not equally efficacious. Therefore, the Court concluded that the petition could not be entertained as a routine matter. However, acknowledging the petitioner's bonafide belief and the pendency of the case before the High Court, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to file the statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority within 60 days from the date of the order's upload. The Appellate Authority was requested to decide the appeal strictly on merits, without being influenced by the proceedings before the High Court, as no observations on the merits were made by this Court. The Court also noted that the impugned order had findings on facts which it did not wish to delve into at this stage.

Facts

The petitioner, N.R. Fibres, filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging an order passed by the GST authorities. The petitioner's counsel argued that the High Court should entertain the petition despite the availability of an alternate statutory remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, citing previous orders of coordinate benches. However, after extensive arguments, the petitioner's counsel sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to file the statutory appeal, stating it was filed under a bonafide belief of maintainability. The GST Department opposed this, expressing concern about opening floodgates for similar petitions and the expiry of statutory appeal periods. The Court noted that while coordinate benches had entertained similar petitions, such orders were not binding on this bench. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's bonafide belief and the lack of extraordinary cause to bypass the alternate remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution when an efficacious alternate statutory remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act is available, and if so, under what circumstances? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the High Court should entertain the writ petition, relying on proceedings of coordinate benches in similar matters where such petitions were entertained. The petitioner also stated that the petition was filed under a bonafide belief that it was maintainable due to these previous orders. Revenue's Arguments: The respondent (GST Department) strongly opposed the entertainment of the writ petition, highlighting the availability of a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act. They argued that granting an extension for filing the appeal would lead to similar cases being filed before the High Court, causing delays and setting an undesirable precedent. They also contended that the High Court should not entertain a writ petition when an equally efficacious alternate remedy exists, as per trite law.