Back
ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA I
Hitachi Astemo Gurugram Powertrain Systems Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Addl. Comm. Office Prin. Comm. (Branch Adjudication) Central G. S. T. Central Excise, Lko. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Sri Dipak Seth, learned senior counsel for opposite party nos.1 and 2 has filed preliminary objection against maintainability of the present writ petition filed against the order of assessment on the ground that the petitioner having a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [here-in-after referred to as 'CGST Act, 2017 for the sake of brevity] for adjudication of disputed questions of law and fact may not be well within his right to bypass the remedy of appeal.
2. According to learned counsel for the opposite parties, the statutory remedy of appeal would bar the writ jurisdiction of this Court in view of the Apex Court judgment in the case of N. P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer Namkkal Constituency & Ors. [(1952) 1 SCC 94]. Attention of this Court was drawn to paragraph 90 of the judgment emphasizing on the principle that such a remedy provided under the statute cannot be allowed to be bye-passed for it being effective and efficacious.
3. Suffice it to say that the statutory remedy prescribed under law is subservient to the constitutional remedy and does not oust the jurisdiction of Writ Court.
4. Sri Siddharth Dha
The existence of a statutory remedy does not preclude the exercise of writ jurisdiction, especially when constitutional remedies are invoked.
Writ petitions are not maintainable when an effective alternative remedy exists, emphasizing the principle of self-imposed limitations on High Court's jurisdiction.
![Zydus Healthcare Ltd. [Earlier M/s. Zydus Healthcare, Sikkim (Firm)] vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Sikk) 30](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Sikkim_3.png)
The availability of an alternative statutory remedy does not create an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under the Constitution. High Courts retain the discretionary power to exe....
The High Court will not entertain a writ petition if an effective alternative remedy exists, emphasizing the need to exhaust statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention.
The court allows a delayed appeal under the CGST Act due to non-functioning of the tribunal, imposing conditions for stay of coercive actions.
Judicial prudence requires courts to refrain from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 when alternate statutory remedies are available.
Statutory remedies must be pursued before writ petitions, especially regarding tax assessments.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
