Canara Bank Vs Joint Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise and Others (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Canara Bank against the Joint Commissioner of Central GST and Excise, citing the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petition challenged an adjudication order confirming the proposals in a show cause notice. The petitioner argued that the order was issued without granting a personal hearing and relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs. Excise and Taxation Officer to justify direct High Court intervention. However, the respondents contended that since the CGST Act provides a statutory appeal mechanism, the writ petition was not maintainable.
The High Court referred to multiple Supreme Court rulings, including Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax vs. M/s Commercial Steel Ltd., which established that writ petitions should not bypass statutory remedies unless exceptional circumstances exist, such as a breach of fundamental rights or a jurisdictional overreach. The Court found no such exceptions in this case and held that the petitioner must first seek redress through the appellate process. While dismissing the petition, the Court granted Canara Bank the liberty to file an appeal, directing the appellate authority to consider the matter on its merits in accordance with the law.
