Canara Bank vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax And Central Excise

Held

The High Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the availability of a statutory alternative remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court relied on multiple Supreme Court judgments, including The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and others vs. M/s Commercial Steel Limited, which clarified that while an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, it can only be entertained in exceptional circumstances such as a breach of fundamental rights, violation of principles of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or challenge to the vires of a statute. The Court found that none of these exceptions were established in the present case. The Court also noted the Supreme Court's observation in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. that High Courts can only interfere in matters involving disputed questions of law, not facts. Therefore, the Court found it improper to entertain the petition. The petitioner was granted liberty to avail the alternative remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, and was permitted to raise all grounds raised in the writ petition before the appellate authority. The appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal on merits expeditiously.

Facts

The petitioner, Canara Bank, filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging an adjudication order dated 22.8.2024 and a summary order dated 6.9.2024 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise and others. These orders confirmed proposals in a show cause notice and rejected the petitioner's responses. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that they approached the High Court because no opportunity for personal hearing was granted, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable before this Court, despite the availability of a statutory alternative remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the writ petition is maintainable because no opportunity for personal hearing was granted, violating principles of natural justice. They relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, which allows High Court intervention when disputed questions of law are involved, not just facts. Respondents' contention: The respondents raised a preliminary objection, asserting that the statutory alternative remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, must be availed. They relied on various Supreme Court judgments, including Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Private Limited vs. Union of India, Hameed Kunju vs. Nazim, Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, and The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and others vs. M/s Commercial Steel Limited, which emphasize the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before approaching the High Court.