Court dismisses writ petition challenging GST order, directs statutory appeal process

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging an order by the Appellate Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, emphasizing the petitioner's deviation from the statutory appellate hierarchy. Despite acknowledging flaws in the impugned order, the court held that they did not warrant the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction. The petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory remedy of a second appeal before the CESTAT, with no costs imposed and liberty granted for an appeal against the order within thirty days.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order by Appellate Commissioner of GST and Central Excise regarding jurisdiction and non-speaking fashion of the order. Deviation from statutory appellate hierarchy. Invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. Consideration of parameters for exercising jurisdiction under Article 226. Lack of reasoning in impugned order. Maintainability of writ petition with alternate remedy available.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged an order by the Appellate Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, raising concerns about the jurisdiction and the non-speaking nature of the order. The petitioner argued that the order did not consider important circulars and case law presented during the personal hearing.

2. The court noted the petitioner's deviation from the statutory appellate hierarchy and referenced a previous case where a similar challenge was rejected due to the availability of a statutory appeal. The petitioner defended its right to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in justified cases.

3. The court discussed the parameters for considering the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, including unfairness, unreasonableness, perversity, lack of jurisdiction, and violation of natural justice. It acknowledged the cryptic nature of the impugned order and the omission of critical case law and circulars.

4. The respondent belatedly argued against the petitioner's stand in the counter, which the court found inappropriate. Citing a Supreme Court case, the court emphasized the importance of orders being fully supported by reasons provided within the order itself.

5. The court deliberated on the adequacy of reasoning in the impugned order, highlighting that orders should not improve over time like wine. It considered whether interference under Article 226 should be warranted solely based on deficiencies in the appellate order.

6. Ultimately, the court concluded that the impugned order's flaws, while significant, did not justify the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court. The petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory remedy of a second appeal before the CESTAT, relegating them to the appellate hierarchy.

7. The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the error should be egregious and serious to bypass the alternate remedy available. The petitioner's genuine pursuit of the matter, without using the writ remedy to avoid pre-deposit, was acknowledged.

8. The court maintained that the proper course of action for the petitioner was to continue with the second appeal before the CESTAT. An appeal against the impugned order was allowed within thirty days, without limitations on pre-deposit, subject to statutory compliances.

9. The judgment was ultimately dismissed with liberty and no costs imposed, closing the connected Miscellaneous Petition.

---