M/S Hans Communication And Construction Private Limited Through Its Director Rajesh Kumar Mahobiya vs. Central Excise

Held

The Court held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable when an alternative, expeditious, and efficacious statutory remedy is available. The Court observed that a second appeal lies before the Tribunal against the order of the First Appellate Authority. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have approached the Appellate Tribunal. The Court declined to invoke its writ jurisdiction, considering it a self-imposed restriction to allow the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy. The Court directed that if the appeal is filed before the Tribunal within 10 days of the order's upload, the Tribunal shall decide the appeal on facts and law, including the justifiability of rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, without insisting on the question of limitation.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Hans Communication and Construction Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the order of the First Appellate Authority. The petitioner contended that the First Appellate Authority committed an illegality by dismissing their appeal without properly considering their application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The respondents are the Principal Commissioner CGST, Commissioner (Appeals), and Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise. The judgment does not specify the tax period or the amount in dispute. The procedural history involves the petitioner approaching the High Court directly via a writ petition instead of pursuing a statutory second appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an alternative statutory remedy of a second appeal is available to the petitioner? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the First Appellate Authority acted illegally and without proper perspective in dismissing their appeal, particularly concerning the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. They sought intervention from the High Court due to this alleged illegality. Respondents' contention: The respondents, through their counsel, implicitly relied on the availability of an alternative remedy. The Court's reasoning indicates that the respondents would have likely pointed to the statutory appeal mechanism as the appropriate recourse.