M/S The INDIA Cements Limited Through Sanjeev Kumar Bohra S/O Champalalji Shalikarmji Bohra vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was 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 cited the Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax and others Vs. Chabbil Dass Agarwal and a Coordinate Bench's view 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 also noted the Supreme Court's affirmation of this view in Zulfikar Ali Vs. Vice Chairman, Jammu Development Authority & others and Rikhab Chand Jain Vs. Union of India and Others. Regarding the submission on the Appellate Authority's power to remand, the Court found that wide powers are conferred on the Appellate Authority to confirm, modify, or annul the order appealed. The Court did not delve into the interpretation of 'communicated' under Section 107 as it was primarily considering the maintainability of the writ petition. The petition was dismissed, but the petitioner was granted liberty to avail the alternative remedy and raise all grounds.

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, requested their 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? 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 and was passed without a personal hearing. When faced with the alternative remedy, the petitioner requested their appeal be dismissed as barred by limitation and contended that the Appellate Authority lacks the power to remand the matter, citing Section 107(11) of the Act. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition was filed without availing the alternative remedy under Section 107 of the Act.