M/S Parle Agro PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise Bhopal

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable because an efficacious alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court relied on several Apex 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 that when a statute provides for a statutory appeal, that remedy must be availed. The Court found no reason to entertain the writ petition directly. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to avail the alternative remedy of appeal within twenty days from the date of the order. The Court directed that the issue of limitation should not come in the way of the petitioner filing the appeal and that the appellate authority should decide the appeal on merits expeditiously. The issue of whether a personal hearing was denied was not decided on merits.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging an order dated 21.03.2024, passed by Respondent No. 2 (an authority under the CGST Act), which rejected their refund claim. The petitioner contended that the writ petition was maintainable because they were not granted an opportunity for a personal hearing before the impugned order was passed. The respondent authorities were represented by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Bhopal, and others. The specific tax period and the amount of refund in dispute are not explicitly stated in the judgment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable when an efficacious alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, is available to the petitioner? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The writ petition is maintainable because the petitioner was denied an opportunity for a personal hearing, rendering the impugned order invalid. They relied on the principle that a lack of natural justice can justify bypassing the statutory remedy. Revenue's contention: The petitioner ought to avail the statutory remedy of appeal as provided under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. They relied on Apex Court judgments emphasizing the importance of exhausting statutory remedies. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue beyond this general principle.