High Court Validates Writ Petition Against Tax Refund Denial, Emphasizes Jurisdictional Flexibility and Statutory Remedy Accessibility

HC examined a writ petition challenging a refund claim rejection under CGST Act. Despite respondents arguing for alternative statutory remedy through Tribunal, the HC recognized jurisdictional merit under Article 226. The court highlighted the petitioner's inability to pursue remedy due to non-functional Tribunal and directed the Union of India to clarify the available recourse, adjourning proceedings for further examination.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order rejecting refund claim under CGST Act, jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, maintainability of writ petition without functional Tribunal, remedy for petitioner's refund claim.

Analysis:
1. Challenge to Order Rejecting Refund Claim: The petitioner challenged the order rejecting their refund claim under the CGST Act. The order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, and later dismissed by the Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise (Appeals) in Mumbai. The petitioner sought relief through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. Jurisdiction under Article 226: The respondents contended that the writ petition should not be entertained as the remedy of approaching the Tribunal under Section 109 of the CGST Act was available. The Principal Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Mumbai, emphasized the availability of the statutory appeal process. The respondents argued that the High Court should not hear the petition on its merits due to the existence of an alternative remedy.

3. Maintainability of Writ Petition without Functional Tribunal: The issue of the maintainability of the writ petition without a functional Tribunal was raised. The petitioner's counsel cited a judgment from the Telangana High Court where it was observed that the petitioner cannot be compelled to wait indefinitely for the Tribunal to be constituted to seek a refund. The judgment highlighted that the mere existence of an alternative remedy does not bar invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Remedy for Petitioner's Refund Claim: The Union of India, represented by the respondents' counsel, was unable to provide clarity on the remedy available to the petitioner in the absence of a functional Tribunal. The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs was directed to file an affidavit clarifying whether the position that the petitioner is remedy-less until the Tribunal is functional was based on instructions from the Union of India. The matter was adjourned for further proceedings.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the challenges faced by the petitioner in seeking a refund under the CGST Act, the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226, the implications of not having a functional Tribunal for seeking redressal, and the uncertainty regarding the remedy available to the petitioner. The Court directed the filing of an affidavit to clarify the stand taken by the respondents and scheduled further proceedings to address the issues raised in the petition.

---