TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Petition dismissed for failure to exhaust alternate remedies; directed to pursue statutory appeal under CGST Act instead</h1> HC refused to entertain the petition, holding that the petitioner must exhaust alternate remedies and that the Appellate Authority is best placed to ... Exhaustion of alternate remedies - Initiation of proceedings by Central Authorities when the State Authorities have already initiated proceedings and passed an order for the A.Y. 2017-18 and 2018-19 - HELD THAT:- After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Armour Security (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate & Anr. [2025 (8) TMI 991 - SUPREME COURT], it is believed that several intricate issues need to be examined to determine whether the principle established in M/S. Armour Security (supra) could be stated to be attracted to the facts of the present case. The Appellate Authority can best undertake the said exercise. The Appellant makes out no exceptional case to deviate the practice of exhaustion of alternate remedies. In the case of Oberoi Constructions Ltd. vs. The Union of India and Ors. [2024 (11) TMI 588 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] counsel for the Respondents., the practice of exhaustion of alternate remedies and the exceptions thereto considered. Therefore, by adopting the reasoning in Oberoi Construction and the precedents referred to therein, it is declined to entertain this Petition but give the Petitioner liberty to challenge the impugned order by instituting an Appeal under the provisions of the CGST Act. Petition disposed off. Petition challenges the original order dated 29 January 2025, contending Central Authorities lacked jurisdiction because State Authorities had already initiated proceedings and passed an order for A.Y. 2017-18 and 2018-19. The State order does not cover the entire period that the Central proceedings encompass; the Central proceedings are broader. The Court, after examining M/s. Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate & Anr. 2025 SCC OnLine 770, found several intricate issues requiring detailed appraisal and held that the Appellate Authority is best placed to determine whether the principle in M/s. Armour Security applies. Applying the practice of 'exhaustion of alternate remedies' as explained in Oberoi Constructions Ltd. v. Union of India (O.S. Writ Petition (L) No.33260 of 2023 disposed 11.11.2024) and its precedents, the Court declined to entertain the writ and granted liberty to challenge the impugned order by instituting an appeal under the CGST Act. If the appeal is filed within four weeks, the Appellate Authority is directed to consider it 'on its own merits and without advertence to the issue of limitation.' All contentions are left open for the Appellate Authority.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
