TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>HC refuses writ petition citing available appellate remedy, finds no extraordinary circumstances under Article 226</h1> <h3>M/s Jai Ramji Pipes Versus State of Punjab and others.</h3> M/s Jai Ramji Pipes Versus State of Punjab and others. - 2025:PHHC:085175 - DB ISSUES: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be entertained despite the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 107(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rule 108 of the CGST Rules, 2017.Whether reliance on an expert report, whose authenticity and presence at the premises is disputed, without addressing objections raised by the petitioner, constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice.Whether the High Court should interfere with the order passed by the Joint Commissioner under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 in the absence of extraordinary circumstances.The scope and application of the High Court's discretion under Article 226 in matters involving recovery of tax and penalties when an alternate statutory remedy exists. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The writ petition cannot be entertained merely on the ground that the alternative remedy under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 is not efficacious; the Court held that 'interference cannot be carried out in a routine manner' where an efficacious alternate remedy is available.The failure of the authorities to specifically address or discuss objections raised regarding the expert report does not, by itself, amount to a violation of the principle of natural justice warranting interference under Article 226.The grounds raised by the petitioner do not amount to 'extraordinary or exceptional circumstance(s)' justifying exercise of the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, and such issues are within the purview of the Appellate Authority.The High Court should exercise restraint and not bypass the statutory appellate mechanism in tax recovery matters, as emphasized by precedents, including the principle that 'when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievance and that too in a fiscal statute, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.' RATIONALE: The Court applied the legal framework established under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, particularly Sections 74(1), 50, 122, and 107(1), and the CGST Rules, 2017.Precedents from the Supreme Court emphasizing the principle of exhaustion of alternative remedies and self-imposed restraint in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 were relied upon, including rulings in Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon and others, Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, and Godrej Sara Lee v. Excise and Taxation Officers.The Court recognized the plenary power under Article 226 but balanced it against the need to respect statutory appellate mechanisms and avoid routine interference in tax recovery actions, especially where public interest and economic considerations are involved.No doctrinal shift or dissent was recorded; the judgment reaffirmed established principles governing writ jurisdiction in fiscal matters and the importance of statutory remedies.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
