Case Law Details
Raju Laxman Pachhapure Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court)
In this case Appellant submits that although there is a statutory remedy of appeal available against the order and though the petitioners are desirous of filing the same but because a pre-deposit would be necessary for filing an appeal which would be burdensome on the petitioners, therefore this petition before Hon’ble High Court.
Mr. Jetly, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that the order-in-original has been passed on 21.8.2019 after considering the materials on record, the written reply of the petitioner dated 10.7.2019 and after giving several opportunities of personal hearing to the petitioner on 27.12.2018, 30.1.2018, 19.3.2019, 28.3.2019, 11.4.2019, 16.4.2019, 30.4.2019, 30.5.2019 and 31.3.2019. He would submit that earlier petitioners had also been granted sufficient opportunity by the 2nd respondent during the various stages of the proceedings right upto the passing of the impugned order-in- original dated 21.8.2019. He would therefore submit that this is not a case where no opportunity was granted to the petitioners. He would further submit that as the facts suggest this is also not a case where the authorities have acted without jurisdiction or contrary to the procedure prescribed under law. He submits that there has been no violation of the principles of natural justice and clearly the alternate remedy by way of appeal should have been availed of by the petitioners. Regarding the submission that though the petitioners are desirous of filing an appeal but since pre-deposit would be necessary and because that would be burdensome on the petitioners they have approached this court, Mr. Jetly would submit that the same is untenable as the right of appeal is a statutory right and not an absolute right and can be circumscribed by the conditions in the grant. He would also submit that all the contentions and grounds taken up by the petitioners in the writ petitions can be taken up by them in the appeal provided under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ( the “CGST Act”) and therefore, these petitions ought to be dismissed.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties for some time and also having perused the papers and proceedings, we are not persuaded to invoke our writ jurisdiction at this stage. We are of the considered opinion that the alternative remedy of appeal is efficacious and the reason given for not invoking the same i.e. pre-deposit being burdensome does not appeal to us. Accordingly, we relegate the petitioners to the remedy available under the CGST Act by way of appeal.
Accordingly, we dismiss both the petitions leaving all contentions open to be agitated before the appellate forum. There shall, however, be no costs in the matter. Interim Application (l) No.93481 of 2020 does not survive and the same also stands disposed off.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
