Hi-Tech Arai Pvt Ltd VS The Assistant Commissioner

The petition in question seeks a Writ of Certiorari to challenge and annul an order issued by the respondent, dated 03.06.2020, in case MAD-CGST-000-ASC-04-2020. The petitioner asserts that the order is devoid of jurisdiction and contravenes Section 140(1) and 140(7) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The petitioner has approached the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, bypassing the statutory appeal process provided under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The crux of the petitioner’s argument, presented by their counsel, revolves around an alleged error on the face of the record. The counsel argues that pursuing the appeal process might not result in a proper resolution, hence justifying the direct approach to the court.

On the other hand, the respondent’s counsel contends vehemently that the proper recourse for the petitioner should have been through the appellate mechanism outlined in Section 107 of the Act. The respondent argues that the petitioner’s claim of error should have been addressed through Section 161 of the CGST Act, which allows rectification by the respondent. Additionally, the respondent points out that under Section 107(6) and (7), an appeal can only be filed after payment of the admitted tax liability and a portion of the disputed tax amount, and filing such an appeal automatically stays recovery proceedings.

The respondent further emphasizes that the petitioner’s failure to utilize the statutory appeal route undermines their claim and unnecessarily burdens the judicial system. They argue that the appellate remedy provided under the law adequately protects the petitioner’s interests and ensures due process.

In summary, the case hinges on whether the petitioner’s decision to directly petition the court under Article 226 was justified in light of the statutory appeal process available under the CGST Act. The court will need to decide whether the alleged error justifies bypassing the appeal mechanism and whether the respondent’s actions were within the bounds of their jurisdiction as per the provisions of the CGST Act.

The case in question involves a petition seeking a Writ of Certiorari to review and annul an order issued by the respondent, which the petitioner contends lacks jurisdiction and violates specific provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The order in dispute, dated 03.06.2020, was challenged by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, bypassing the appeal process provided under Section 107 of the CGST Act.

The petitioner’s argument, presented by their counsel, revolves around an alleged error on the face of the record that could potentially impair justice if the appeal process is pursued. Hence, they justify their approach to the court without exhausting the appeal remedy. On the other hand, the respondent’s counsel vehemently defends the order-in-original, citing the availability of an appeal under Section 107 of the Act, which requires the appellant to pay a specified portion of the disputed amount to stay recovery proceedings.

In their counter-affidavit, the respondent argues that the petitioner could have rectified any perceived error through Section 161 of the CGST Act before approaching the court, thereby questioning the necessity of the writ petition. They further contend that the petitioner’s claim lacks legal basis and imposes undue burden on the department.

Additionally, the respondent’s counsel cites legal precedent, including the case of Stromtech Automation Pvt. Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner of GST & CEX, Chennai, to support the view that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked prematurely, emphasizing the discretion rather than the compulsion to exhaust alternate remedies.

In summary, the case hinges on whether the High Court will accept the petitioner’s argument of an error apparent on the face of the record as sufficient grounds to bypass the statutory appeal process and grant relief through a Writ of Certiorari. The respondent maintains that the appeal avenue provides a proper legal recourse, and the writ petition should be dismissed accordingly. Thus, the court’s decision will likely center on balancing procedural requirements with the principles of justice and administrative law.

The case revolves around a petition seeking a Writ of Certiorari to review and annul an order dated 03.06.2020 issued by the respondent, purportedly without jurisdiction and in violation of specific provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act).

The petitioner, dissatisfied with the order-in-original issued by the adjudicating authority, approached the court under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, arguing that there was an apparent error on the face of the record that might not be effectively addressed through the appeal process provided under Section 107 of the CGST Act.

The petitioner’s counsel contended that the error was substantial enough to justify direct intervention by the court without first exhausting the appeal remedy, citing concerns that delay could lead to coercive recovery actions by the respondent, causing irreparable harm.

In response, the respondent’s counsel vehemently opposed the petition, emphasizing that Section 107 of the CGST Act clearly provides an avenue for appeal against such orders. They argued that the petitioner’s failure to utilize this statutory appeal route undermined their justification for seeking extraordinary writ relief. The respondent also highlighted judicial precedents supporting the principle that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when alternative statutory remedies are available, unless there are exceptional circumstances such as lack of jurisdiction or violation of natural justice.

Moreover, the respondent pointed out that the order-in-original was issued following due process and adherence to principles of natural justice, as evident from the order itself. They cited cases where higher courts had upheld the necessity of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking writ remedies, reinforcing the argument against premature resort to writ jurisdiction.

The dispute thus hinges on whether the alleged error in the order-in-original warrants immediate judicial review via writ or should first be addressed through the appellate mechanism provided under the CGST Act. The court’s decision will likely hinge on balancing the petitioner’s claims of error against the respondent’s assertion of statutory compliance and the availability of an alternative remedy.

In summary, the case underscores the procedural complexities inherent in tax adjudication under the CGST Act, where parties must navigate between statutory appeal routes and the possibility of invoking writ jurisdiction for exceptional reasons.

The case revolves around a petition seeking a Writ of Certiorari to challenge an order issued by the respondent on 03.06.2020 in the matter of MAD-CGST-000-ASC-04-2020. The petitioner alleges that the order is beyond the jurisdiction conferred by Sections 140(1) and 140(7) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). Instead of appealing the order under Section 107 of the Act, the petitioner has approached the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, citing apparent errors on the face of the record that, in their view, would not be adequately addressed through the appeal process.

In response, the respondent contends that the order-in-original was issued following due process and in accordance with natural justice principles. They argue that the petitioner has an available remedy to appeal the decision under Section 107 of the CGST Act, provided the requisite conditions, including payment of a specified sum, are met. The respondent points out judicial precedents where courts have emphasized the importance of exhausting alternate remedies before seeking writ jurisdiction, particularly in cases where jurisdiction is not in question and natural justice principles have been upheld.

Citing cases such as Stromtech Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of GST & CEX, Chennai and Karnataka Chemicals v. UOI, the respondent argues that unless there are specific grounds such as lack of jurisdiction or violation of natural justice, writ jurisdiction should not be invoked bypassing the statutory appeal process. They also highlight a recent decision by the Kerala High Court in Abdul Saleem A.I. v. State Tax Officer, SGST Dept, Kalamassery, which supports the view that writ jurisdiction is not invocable when the order is based on cogent reasons and does not contain errors justifying intervention.

In conclusion, the respondent urges the court to dismiss the writ petition, asserting that the petitioner has an effective remedy available through the appellate process provided under the CGST Act. They argue that allowing the writ petition would be an unnecessary burden on the judicial system and contrary to established legal principles governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

The case revolves around a petition seeking a Writ of Certiorari to challenge an order dated 03.06.2020 issued by the respondent under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The petitioner, invoking Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, contends that the order is jurisdictionally flawed and violates sections 140(1) and 140(7) of the CGST Act.

The petitioner argues that there exists an error on the face of the record, which may not be adequately addressed through the appeal process provided under Section 107 of the CGST Act. Hence, they justify approaching the court directly without exhausting the appellate remedy, citing concerns that such an appeal might not interpret the error correctly, potentially causing irreparable harm.

On the other hand, the respondent counters that the order-in-original is lawful and was issued following due process and principles of natural justice. They argue that the petitioner has a statutory right to appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act and should have pursued this remedy before resorting to a writ petition. The respondent cites legal precedents emphasizing that writ jurisdiction should only be invoked in exceptional circumstances, such as lack of jurisdiction or violation of natural justice principles, neither of which apply in this case.

Further, the respondent points out Section 161 of the CGST Act, which allows rectification of errors apparent on the face of the record, either by the authority itself or upon notification by an officer. This provision, along with the appellate process, provides the petitioner with sufficient alternative remedies without necessitating immediate recourse to a writ petition.

Legal arguments include references to judicial decisions such as the Madras High Court’s stance on alternate remedies in the case of Stromtech Automation Pvt. Ltd., and the Supreme Court’s precedent in Karnataka Chemicals v. UOI, emphasizing that writ petitions should not bypass available statutory appeals unless under exceptional circumstances.

In conclusion, the dispute centers on whether the writ petition should be entertained without exhausting the statutory appeal process, given the available avenues for rectification and appeal under the CGST Act. The court will need to decide whether the circumstances of the case warrant a deviation from the usual rule of exhausting alternate remedies before seeking extraordinary writ relief.

The petitioner in this case seeks a Writ of Certiorari from the court to quash an order issued by the respondent on June 3, 2020, in the matter of MAD-CGST-000-ASC-04-2020. This order, according to the petitioner, lacks jurisdiction and violates specific sections of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, namely Section 140(1) and 140(7).

The petitioner has approached the court under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, arguing that there is an apparent error on the face of the record that could affect their rights, and thus, appealing directly to the court is justified without first exhausting the statutory appeal process provided under the GST Act.

In response, the respondent contends that the proper course of action for the petitioner would be to file an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act. They argue that the petitioner’s claim of error on the face of the record can be addressed through the appeal process, which includes provisions for stay of recovery proceedings upon payment of a specified amount.

The respondent cites legal precedents where courts have emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before resorting to writ petitions, particularly in matters concerning tax disputes. They argue that unless there is a clear lack of jurisdiction or violation of natural justice, writ jurisdiction should not be invoked prematurely.

Furthermore, the respondent highlights Section 161 of the GST Act, which allows for rectification of errors apparent on the face of the record by the authority that passed the original decision or order. This, they argue, provides an additional avenue for the petitioner to seek relief without approaching the court directly.

In light of these arguments and legal precedents, the court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition without delving into the merits of the case. Instead, the court directs the petitioner to pursue their remedies through the appellate authority or the original adjudicating authority, within a specified timeframe. The court emphasizes that the petitioner’s appeal or review under Section 161 should be considered by the appropriate authorities once filed within the stipulated period.

Therefore, the court’s decision effectively relegates the petitioner to exhaust the statutory appeal and review mechanisms provided under the GST Act, indicating a preference for the hierarchical approach to resolving tax disputes before entertaining writ petitions, except in cases of jurisdictional issues or violations of natural justice.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case law: