S.S Enterprises vs. Union Of INDIA Through Ist Chairman Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs

Held

The Court, without delving into the merits of the case, deemed it expedient to dispose of the writ petition. The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within 10 days from the date of the order. The Appellate Authority was directed to consider and decide the petitioner's application for stay and the appeal expeditiously on merits, in accordance with the law, provided the appeal is filed within the stipulated period. Until the stay application is decided by the Appellate Authority, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order. The Court clarified that it had not passed any order on the merits of the case and the Appellate Authority should not be influenced by this order. If the appeal is not filed within 10 days, the interim protection shall automatically cease.

Facts

The petitioner, S.S. Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 12.08.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise. This order confirmed a GST demand of Rs. 53,29,13,310/- (CGST: Rs. 39,10,05,518/-, SGST: Rs. 7,09,53,896/-) and an equal penalty against the petitioner. The authority also directed the appropriation of Rs. 66,43,130/- cash seized from the petitioner's residential premises. The revenue raised a preliminary objection regarding the availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, considering the petitioner's contention that the Adjudication Officer failed to provide documents and an opportunity for cross-examination? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Article 226 and Section 107 of the CGST Act). Petitioner's arguments: The alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction, especially when procedural irregularities like denial of documents and cross-examination occurred. Reliance was placed on a co-ordinate bench's decision in *Paper Trade Links Through its proprietor Vs. Union of India* (WP No.6061/2023). Revenue's arguments: The petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to defend themselves. When an alternative and efficacious remedy exists, a writ petition should not be entertained. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court judgments in *Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Anor*, *Hameed Kanju Vs. Najim*, *Anshal Housing and Const. Vs. State of UP*, and *Institute of Hotel Management and Another Vs. UOI and Anr*.