M/S The INDIA Cements Limited Through Its Authorized Signatory Sanjeev Kumar Bohra vs. The Union Of INDIA

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, the Court emphasized that writ petitions should not bypass statutory forums created for grievance redressal. The Court also referred to a Coordinate Bench's view in Neeraj Mandloi Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal and Others, and affirmed by the Apex Court in Zulfikar Ali Vs. Vice Chairman, Jammu Development Authority & others and Rikhab Chand Jain Vs. Union of India and Others, that tax liability matters should generally not be entertained via writ petitions when an appeal remedy is available. The Court did not delve into the interpretation of 'communicated' under Section 107 or the extent of the Appellate Authority's powers regarding remand, focusing solely on the maintainability of the writ petition. The petition was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy and raise all grounds raised in the writ 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 but uploaded on the portal, and they only became aware of it on 06.01.2026. They also 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. The petitioner, when confronted with this, requested the appeal be dismissed as barred by limitation and argued that the Appellate Authority cannot remand the matter.

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? The petitioner argued that the impugned order was not properly communicated and was uploaded on the portal, leading to their late discovery of it. They also contended that the order was passed without a personal hearing. When faced with the alternative remedy, the petitioner's counsel requested the appeal be dismissed as barred by limitation and raised a secondary argument that the Appellate Authority lacks the power to remand the matter under Section 107(11) of the Act. The respondents argued that the writ petition should not be entertained as a statutory appeal mechanism exists.