M/S Choithram International Through Its Managing Trustee Satish Motiani vs. Department Of Revenue Miknistry Of Finance Govt. Of INDIA Through Secretary Revenue

Held

The Court was not inclined to allow the application for amendment of the writ petition. The Court reasoned that once an order has been passed by the authority and a statutory remedy is available against that order, the petitioner must resort to the remedy provided by law, i.e., the appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The Court held that it was not inclined to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in such circumstances. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts should generally relegate parties to statutory remedies when they are available and efficacious, especially after an order has been passed by the original authority. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order by resorting to the statutory remedy of appeal in accordance with the law. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Choithram International, filed a writ petition challenging a show-cause notice issued under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. During the pendency of the petition, the competent authority passed an order dated 24/12/2025. The petitioner sought to amend the writ petition to challenge this subsequent order. The respondent opposed the amendment, arguing that a statutory remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act was available against the impugned order. The petitioner contended that the writ petition should be entertained due to an inherent lack of jurisdiction.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition should be entertained despite the existence of a statutory remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, when an order has been passed by the competent authority? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that the writ petition should be entertained due to an inherent lack of jurisdiction in the proceedings, implying that the statutory remedy might not be adequate or applicable in such a scenario. Revenue's argument: The respondent argued that against the impugned order, there is a statutory remedy available under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and therefore, the writ petition should not be entertained, and the petitioner should be directed to avail the appellate remedy.