2025 (11) TMI 1920 - HC - GST

Writ under Article 226 rejected; taxpayer directed to file CGST Section 107 appeal with interim protection granted

HC held that the writ petition under Article 226 was not maintainable in view of the alternative and efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under s.107 ... Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal u/s 107 of the CGST - Adjudication Officer has not provided the documents and opportunity of cross-examination - petitioner argued that the alternative bar is not an absolute bar for exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT:- It is deemed expedient to dispose of the present petition with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within the period of 10 days from today alongwith the application for stay and if the said appeal is filed within the said period, the Appellate Authority shall consider and decide the application for stay as well as appeal expeditiously on merits in accordance with law. Till the application for stay is considered by the Appellate Authority, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in pursuant to the impugned order. If the appeal is not filed within 10 days as directed, the interim order shall automatically come to an end. The present petition stands disposed of. Petition under Articles 226 and 227 challenged an order of the Additional Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, confirming GST demand of Rs. 53,29,13,310/- (CGST and SGST) and equal penalty, and directing appropriation of Rs. 66,43,130/- seized from petitioner's residence. Respondents raised a preliminary objection of 'alternative and efficacious remedy' by way of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. Petitioner contended that the bar on writ jurisdiction is not absolute, alleging denial of documents and opportunity of cross-examination, and relied on a coordinate bench decision in Paper Trade Links. Respondents maintained that sufficient opportunity was given and invoked Supreme Court precedents emphasizing non-interference where statutory remedies exist. Without examining merits, the Court relegated the petitioner to the appellate remedy, granting liberty to file an appeal with stay application within 10 days. The Appellate Authority was directed to decide stay and appeal expeditiously. 'Till the application for stay is considered ... no coercive action shall be taken.' Failure to file appeal within 10 days would end the interim protection. The Appellate Authority was directed not to be influenced by this order.