M/S The INDIA Cements Limited Thrugh Its Authorized Signaotry Sanjeev Kumar Bohra vs. Union Of INDIA Through The Secretgary Department Of Revenue Ministry Of Finannce

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. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax and others Vs. Chabbil Dass Agarwal and a Coordinate Bench decision in Neeraj Mandloi Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal, the Court affirmed that when a statutory forum is created for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring such statutory dispensation. The Court also noted that the Appellate Authority has wide powers to confirm, modify, or annul the decision appealed against, and did not delve into the interpretation of 'communicated' or the powers of remand under Section 107 at this stage. The petition was dismissed, but the petitioner was granted liberty 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 05.12.2022 passed by respondent No.5, which confirmed a demand along with penalty and interest. The petitioner contended that the order was never communicated and was only uploaded on the portal, and they became aware of it on 06.01.2026. They further argued that the order was passed without 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.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable given 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 their appeal under Section 107 may be dismissed as barred by limitation. They also contended that as per sub-section 11 of Section 107, the Appellate Authority cannot remand the matter to the adjudicating authority. Respondents' arguments: The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner filed the writ petition without first availing the remedy under Section 107 of the Act.