2025 (7) TMI 1247 - HC - GST

Petition dismissed for attempting to bypass statutory pre-deposit requirements through Article 226 without exceptional circumstances

Sainath Clearing and Shipping Company Versus Union of India and Others

Sainath Clearing and Shipping Company Versus Union of India and Others - 2025:BHC - AS:29213 - DB 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED Whether the petition is maintainable in the absence of pleadings regarding the availability and exhaustion of alternate remedies. Whether the impugned order and show cause notice are without jurisdiction and barred by limitation. Whether the Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain the petition bypassing the statutory appeal process, including the requirement of pre-deposit. Whether the pre-deposit requirement under the statute can be waived in the present case. The effect of filing the petition within the prescribed limitation period on subsequent appeal proceedings. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Maintainability of the Petition in the Absence of Pleadings on Alternate Remedy - Legal Framework and Precedents: The principle of exhaustion of alternate remedies is well-established, requiring litigants to pursue efficacious statutory remedies before invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. Precedents emphasize that petitions lacking clear averments on the non-availability or futility of alternate remedies are liable to be dismissed. - Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court observed that the petition contains only a vague statement claiming failure of other efforts without specific pleadings on alternate remedies. This omission is viewed as a deliberate avoidance of mandatory pleadings. - Application of Law to Facts: Given the absence of necessary pleadings, the Court found no justification to entertain the petition under extraordinary jurisdiction, especially when a statutory appeal remedy exists. - Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner's claim that alternate remedies were exhausted was not supported by concrete pleadings, and the Court declined to accept vague assertions. - Conclusion: The petition is not maintainable due to failure to plead and establish the non-availability or inadequacy of alternate remedies. Issue 2: Jurisdiction and Limitation of the Impugned Order and Show Cause Notice - Legal Framework and Precedents: Jurisdictional challenges and limitation issues are factual in nature and are generally addressed through appropriate statutory remedies such as appeals. - Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that these contentions require factual investigation and have already been considered in the original order. The petition is not the proper forum to re-examine these factual issues. - Application of Law to Facts: Since the petitioner is aggrieved by these findings, the statutory appeal provides a suitable remedy to challenge them. - Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner's assertion of lack of jurisdiction and limitation was acknowledged but not accepted as grounds for bypassing the appeal remedy. - Conclusion: These issues do not warrant entertaining the petition and should be raised in the appeal process. Issue 3: Exercise of Extraordinary Jurisdiction under Article 226 and Avoidance of Statutory Appeal Procedure - Legal Framework and Precedents: Article 226 jurisdiction is discretionary and not to be exercised in a manner that undermines the statutory appeal mechanism, especially when the latter is efficacious and prescribed with conditions such as pre-deposit. - Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court emphasized that it does not entertain petitions filed solely to circumvent the statutory appeal process and pre-deposit requirements. - Application of Law to Facts: The petition was found to be an attempt to avoid the pre-deposit requirement, which is integral to the statutory appeal procedure. - Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner sought waiver of pre-deposit but failed to provide any justification or pleadings for such special treatment. - Conclusion: The Court declined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction and dismissed the petition to uphold the statutory regime. Issue 4: Waiver of Pre-Deposit Requirement - Legal Framework and Precedents: Waiver of pre-deposit is an exception and requires specific pleadings and justifications demonstrating exceptional circumstances. - Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court found no pleadings or explanation for waiver in the petition, and thus no basis to grant such relief. - Application of Law to Facts: The petitioner's mere request for waiver without substantiation was insufficient. - Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court rejected the request for waiver as it would contravene the statutory procedure. - Conclusion: No waiver of pre-deposit was granted; the petitioner must comply with statutory requirements. Issue 5: Effect of Filing Petition Within Prescribed Limitation Period on Subsequent Appeal - Legal Framework and Precedents: Filing within limitation is a condition for maintainability of appeals and petitions; delay or pendency before courts may be considered in appeal proceedings. - Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the petition was filed within limitation and directed that if an appeal is filed within eight weeks from the order's uploading, the Tribunal should consider the pendency period of the petition. - Application of Law to Facts: This direction ensures that the petitioner is not prejudiced due to time spent in the dismissed petition. - Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court accommodated the petitioner's request to exclude the time spent before it from the limitation period for appeal. - Conclusion: The petitioner is permitted to file an appeal within eight weeks, with the Tribunal to give due consideration to the petition's pendency period.