Dismissal of Writ Petitions: Upholding Alternate Remedy Rule -GSTAct

The court dismissed the Writ Petitions, advising the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal under Section 107 of the TN-GST Act and C-GST Act. The court emphasized the importance of the alternate remedy rule and refrained from interfering in writ jurisdiction due to the lack of exceptional circumstances or compelling Natural Justice Principle violation. The petitioner was granted the right to exclude time spent in court for limitation computation before the Appellate Authority, with no costs imposed on the parties.

---

---

Issues Involved:
- Alleged violation of Natural Justice Principle in adjusting Input Tax Credit towards outward tax liability without considering objections.
- Applicability of alternate remedy rule under Section 107 of TN-GST Act and C-GST Act.

Detailed Analysis:

Violation of Natural Justice Principle:
The writ petitioner contended that the respondent did not consider their objections before adjusting Input Tax Credit (ITC) towards outward tax liability, alleging a violation of the Natural Justice Principle (NJP). The respondent, through the learned Revenue counsel, argued that the objections were indeed considered, and the adjustment was based on the petitioner being a beneficiary of ITC. The court emphasized that even if the reasoning provided was deemed insufficient, it would be a matter for appeal rather than interference in writ jurisdiction based on NJP violation. The court highlighted that the matter heavily relied on factual aspects, making it suitable for review by an Appellate Authority with access to records. Therefore, the alleged NJP violation was not deemed sufficient to warrant interference in writ jurisdiction.

Applicability of Alternate Remedy Rule:
The court acknowledged the availability of an alternate remedy through an appeal under Section 107 of the TN-GST Act and C-GST Act for the writ petitioner. It delved into the principle of the alternate remedy rule, emphasizing that it is a discretionary self-imposed restraint on writ jurisdiction. Citing precedents, including Dunlop India case, Satyawati Tandon case, and K.C. Mathew case, the court highlighted that the alternate remedy rule is to be strictly applied, especially in fiscal statutes. The court referenced exceptions to the rule outlined in the Commercial Steel Limited case, emphasizing that interference in writ jurisdiction should occur only under exceptional circumstances, such as fundamental rights breach, natural justice violation, excess of jurisdiction, or statutory challenge. As the present case did not fall under any exception and lacked compelling NJP violation, the court concluded that the writ petitioner should pursue the statutory appeal route under Section 107, refraining from expressing any opinion on the case's merits.

In the final judgment, the court dismissed the captioned Writ Petitions while preserving the writ petitioner's rights to pursue the statutory appeal under Section 107 of the TN-GST Act and C-GST Act. The court clarified that any appeal would be decided on its merits by the Appellate Authority, independent of the observations made in the order. The writ petitioner was also granted the opportunity to request exclusion of time spent in the court for limitation computation purposes before the Appellate Authority. The judgment concluded without imposing any costs on the parties involved.

---