Writ petition not maintainable when alternate remedy of GST appeal not exercised

D. Justin Kumar Vs Assistant Commissioner of CGST and C.Excise (Madras High Court)

The Madras High Court addressed a writ petition filed by D. Justin Kumar challenging an order issued by the Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the State GST officers in Kuzhithurai had already adjudicated cases concerning the same subject matter for the tax periods spanning 2018 to 2021. Citing Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the counsel contended that a subsequent order by the CGST authority on the same issue and for the same period was contrary to the law, effectively constituting double taxation and warranting the quashing of the challenged order.

The Standing Counsel for the respondent acknowledged the petitioner’s available appeal remedy before the Joint Commissioner of CGST (Appeals), Madurai, as per Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. The counsel pointed out that the petitioner had directly approached the High Court without utilizing this statutory appeal mechanism. Consequently, the Madras High Court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner the liberty to file an appeal with the designated appellate authority. The court further directed that if such an appeal is filed within two weeks from the receipt of the order copy, it should be entertained without considering the usual limitation period and subsequently disposed of within two months, in accordance with the applicable laws. The court made no order regarding costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT