M/Sthe INDIA Cements Limited Through Its Sanjeev Kumar Bohra Authorised Officer vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy. Citing judgments from the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax and others Vs. Chabbil Dass Agarwal, Zulfikar Ali Vs. Vice Chairman, Jammu Development Authority & others, and Rikhab Chand Jain Vs. Union of India and Others, as well as a coordinate bench's decision in Neeraj Mandloi Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal and Others, the Court affirmed the principle that writ petitions should not be entertained when a statutory forum for redressal of grievances exists. The Court did not delve into the interpretation of the word 'communicated' under Section 107 or the extent of the Appellate Authority's power to remand, as the primary issue was the maintainability of the writ petition. The petition was dismissed, but liberty was granted to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy under Section 107, with the liberty to 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 05.12.2022 passed by Respondent No. 5, which confirmed a demand along with penalty and interest. The petitioner contended that the order was not communicated to them, and 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, when confronted with this, argued that their appeal would be barred by limitation and that the Appellate Authority cannot remand the matter.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court, given the availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? 2. Whether the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Act has the power to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was not communicated to them and was passed without a personal hearing. They further contended that their appeal under Section 107 would be barred by limitation and that the Appellate Authority lacks the power to remand the matter, citing sub-section 11 of Section 107. Respondents' arguments: The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has not availed the alternative remedy provided under Section 107 of the Act.