Bombay HC refuses to hear CGST petition without exhausting statutory appeals first

The Bombay HC declined to entertain a petition challenging an Order-in-Original by the Principal Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Pune. The court held that petitioners must exhaust alternative statutory appeals before approaching the HC, following precedent in Oberoi Constructions Ltd. The requirement of pre-deposit was not grounds for bypassing statutory remedies, particularly for a multinational company. The court granted liberty to challenge the notification dated 31 March 2023 if statutory remedies fail. Petition disposed of without entertainment.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to Order-in-Original dated 29 December 2023 made by the Principal Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Pune. Availability of alternate remedy of appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). Jurisdiction of the impugned order. Consideration of Hon'ble Supreme Court decisions. Interpretation of Northern Operating Systems Private Limited case. Petitioner's contention of pre-deposit. Challenge to notification dated 31 March 2023.

Analysis:
The petition challenges the Order-in-Original dated 29 December 2023 issued by the Principal Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Pune. The petitioner claimed that no other adequate remedy is available, but the court found this assertion misleading as an alternate remedy of appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) exists. The court noted that the impugned order clearly mentioned this remedy, making the petitioner's claim of no alternative remedy misleading and unappreciated (para 2-4).

The petitioner argued that the impugned order was without jurisdiction and a product of non-application of mind, citing the reliance on a Supreme Court decision without appreciating distinguishing features. The respondent contended that the decision was correctly considered and binding. The court held that the usual practice of exhausting alternate statutory appeals should be followed unless exceptional circumstances warrant otherwise (para 5-8).

Referring to a recent case, the court emphasized the importance of adhering to the practice of exhausting alternate remedies before approaching the court. The court declined to entertain the petition, stating that no departure from the usual practice was warranted in this case (para 9-10).

The court highlighted that the interpretation of the Supreme Court's decision in the Northern Operating Systems Private Limited case could be addressed by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner's contention of pre-deposit was dismissed as insufficient grounds to bypass statutory remedies. The challenge to the notification dated 31 March 2023 was kept open for future consideration if the petitioner does not succeed in the statutory remedy (para 11-14).

Despite declining to entertain the petition, the court granted the petitioner the liberty to file an appeal within four weeks. The Appellate Authority was directed to consider the appeal on merits without adverting to the limitation period, acknowledging the petitioner's bona fide pursuit of the petition before the court (para 15-16).

In conclusion, the petition was disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue the appeal. All contentions of the parties on merits were left open, and no costs were awarded. All concerned were instructed to act on the authenticated copy of the court's order (para 17-18).

---