M/S The INDIA Cements Limited Through Its Authorized Signatory Sanjeev Kumar Bohra vs. Union Of INDIA The Secretary Department Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance Ministry Of Finnance

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax and others Vs. Chabbil Dass Agarwal and a coordinate bench's decision in Neeraj Mandloi Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal and Others, affirming that writ petitions should not be entertained when a statutory forum for redressal exists. The Court noted that it was not apposite to interpret the word 'communicated' under Section 107 at that stage, nor to delve into the powers of the Appellate Authority regarding remand, as the primary issue was the maintainability of the writ petition. The Court dismissed the writ petition but granted liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy and raise all grounds raised in the present petition.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s The India Cements Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 31.07.2024 passed by Respondent No. 5, which confirmed a demand, penalty, and interest. The petitioner contended that the order was not communicated but merely uploaded to the portal and that they only became aware of it on 06.01.2026. They also argued that the order was passed without granting a personal hearing. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner acknowledged the remedy but requested their appeal be dismissed as barred by limitation, also noting a provision that the Appellate Authority cannot remand the matter.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the order was not properly communicated and that the appeal under Section 107 would be barred by limitation. They also raised a point regarding the Appellate Authority's power to remand the matter, citing sub-section 11 of Section 107. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents contended that the petitioner should have availed the statutory remedy under Section 107 of the Act before filing the writ petition.