Airports Authority Of INDIA vs. The Assistant Commissioner CGST South Extension Division Division-I Delhi East Commissionerate & An
Held
The Court held that the writ petition should be dismissed because there was no pleading in the writ petition bringing the case within the ambit of exceptions for exercising writ jurisdiction despite the availability of an alternate remedy. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's pronouncements in Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks and M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority & Ors., which emphasize that while High Courts have discretion, they should normally not entertain writ petitions where an effective and efficacious alternative remedy is available. The Court found that the petitioner had not demonstrated any grounds to deviate from this general principle. Therefore, the petitioner was relegated to the alternative remedy of appeal.
Facts
The petitioner, Airports Authority of India, challenged an order dated 29.05.2026 rejecting their claim for interest on a delayed refund. A dispute regarding service tax leviability on monthly annual fees received for operation, management, and development agreements was decided in favor of the petitioner by the CESTAT on 22.01.2018, setting aside an Order-in-Original dated 26.03.2014. This decision followed this court's rulings in W.P.(C) 2516/2008 and W.P.(C) 2707/2008. The refund was eventually sanctioned on 31.08.2023. The petitioner's subsequent representation dated 22.09.2023 for interest on the delayed refund was rejected by the impugned order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an order that is appealable under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy? The petitioner contended that while an alternative remedy exists, the High Court has the discretion to entertain a writ petition, particularly in cases involving fundamental rights violations, principles of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or challenges to the vires of an Act, as per the Supreme Court's decisions in Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks and M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority & Ors. The respondents did not present any arguments on this issue.
Sections Cited
Section 35
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2026
This petition is filed challenging the decision dated 29.05.2026, rejecting the sanctioning of interest on the alleged period of delay in sanctioning the refund.
The brief facts are that there was a dispute as to whether the monthly annual fee received by the petitioner for operation, management and development agreements, was leviable to service tax or not.
The issue was decided on 14.02.2017 by this court in W.P.(C) 2516/2008 Delhi International Airport Private Limited vs. Union of India & Ors. and W.P.(C) 2707/2008 Mumb
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.