Alternative Remedy Emphasized as Petition Dismissed; Jurisdictional Error or Constitutional Challenge Not Demonstrated.

The HC declined to interfere with the Order-in-Original (OIO) dated 03.04.2024, emphasizing the availability of an alternative appellate remedy under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner failed to demonstrate a jurisdictional error or constitutional challenge in the OIO. The writ petition was disposed of, granting the petitioner liberty to pursue the statutory remedy, and any pending interlocutory applications were closed.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to Order-in-Original (OIO) dated 03.04.2024 despite availability of alternative remedy.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought to challenge the Order-in-Original (OIO) dated 03.04.2024 despite the existence of a statutory remedy of appeal under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that a writ petition is always maintainable, citing a recent judgment of the Apex Court in M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority. On the other hand, the Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC contended that an alternative remedy was available as mentioned in the impugned OIO itself.

The High Court, after hearing both parties, opined that the impugned OIO could be considered an erroneous order at best, without any patent lack of jurisdiction. While acknowledging the availability of a statutory alternative remedy, the Court highlighted that interference under Article 226 of the Constitution could be made in certain circumstances at the discretion of the Court, not as a compulsion. The Court referred to the recent judgment in M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd., where the Apex Court emphasized the importance of exhausting alternative remedies, especially in matters involving recovery of public dues.

The Court further emphasized that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error or challenge to the constitutionality of any provision in the impugned OIO. Mere violation of principles of natural justice was deemed insufficient to warrant interference in a writ petition. The Court referenced previous judgments to support the principle that unless there is a fundamental flaw impacting jurisdiction or causing palpable injustice, the High Court should refrain from entertaining writ petitions.

Ultimately, the Court declined to interfere in the impugned OIO, noting that the petitioner had not shown any significant flaw warranting bypassing the statutory remedy. The petitioner was granted liberty to avail the alternative appellate remedy, and the writ petition was disposed of without costs. Any pending interlocutory applications were also closed as a result of the judgment.

---