Writ Petition Not Maintainable When Alternative Remedy Exists Under Section 107 of the 2017 Act

The HC held that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the Act of 2017. The court emphasized that despite alleged non-supply of documents by the CGST authority, the petitioners should have pursued the statutory appeal instead of approaching the writ court. Reliance was placed on SC precedent which prohibits interference by the HC when an efficacious appeal remedy exists. The time elapsed during the writ petition proceedings would be excluded if the petitioners seek condonation of delay before the Appellate Authority. The petition was accordingly disposed of.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether the adjudicating authority violated principles of natural justice by not supplying relevant documents to the petitioners before passing the order under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017.Whether the writ court should entertain the writ petition despite the existence of an alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017.Whether leave should be granted to prefer an appeal against the order dated 24th December, 2024.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

On the issue of natural justice, the court recognized the contention that relevant documents were not supplied to the petitioners, which "prevented the petitioners from making meaningful deliberation" before the adjudicating authority, and found it appropriate to keep this issue alive for appellate consideration.Regarding the availability of an alternative remedy, the court held that "when there is alternative efficacious speedy remedy available under the statute writ Court ought not entertain writ petition ignoring the appeal provision," emphasizing the appeal provision under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017.The court granted leave to the petitioners to prefer an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 within a stipulated time frame and directed that the interim order previously granted shall continue until the appeal is disposed of.

RATIONALE:

The court applied the statutory framework of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, particularly Sections 74 (adjudication of tax demands) and 107 (appeal against orders of adjudicating authority).The principle that writ jurisdiction is generally not exercised where an alternative statutory remedy is available was reaffirmed, citing established Supreme Court precedent emphasizing the need for exhaustion of such remedies before approaching the writ court.The court acknowledged a potential violation of natural justice due to non-supply of relevant documents, which warranted appellate scrutiny rather than outright dismissal of the petition.No dissent or doctrinal shift was indicated; the judgment followed conventional legal principles balancing procedural fairness and statutory remedies.

---