Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. vs The Commissioner Of Cgst And Central ... on 16 December, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:62487
1 WP-36558-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 16th OF DECEMBER, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 36558 of 2024
M/S PARLE AGRO PVT. LTD.
Versus
THE COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE BHOPAL
AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Lalita Fadke - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
Per: Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 21.03.2024 (Annexure P/6) passed by the respondent No.2 rejecting the refund.
2. When a query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to statutory alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the (Central Goods and Service Tax) CGST Act, 2017, learned counsel submitted that since no opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the petitioner, therefore, they approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.
3. The Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Private Limited vs. Union of India and others reported in (2014) 15 SCC 44 in which it is held that when a statute provides for statutory appeal, the said Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KOSHTA Signing time: 12/18/2024 10:59:46 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:62487 2 WP-36558-2024 remedy is to be availed by the litigating parties. In Hameed Kunju Vs. Nazim, reported in (2017) 8 SCC 611 , the apex Court held that any petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should be dismissed in limine. Here there is statutory provision of appeal. In the case of Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. vs. State of Uttar. Pradesh and others , reported in (2016) 13 SCC 305, it is held that when statutory appeal is provided then the said remedy has to be availed.
4. It is not in dispute that the efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available to the petitioner. Therefore, we do not find it proper to entertain the petition. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail the alternative remedy, in accordance with law, if so advised. Since the issue of limitation has been raised, the same shall not come in the way of the petitioner in filing the appeal in case the same is filed within twenty days, from today. The petitioner would be at liberty to raise all the grounds raised in the present writ petition. The appellate authority is directed to dwell upon the issue and pass the order on merits, as expeditiously as possible.
5. With the aforesaid liberty, this writ petition is finally disposed off. Certified copy as per rules.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE JUDGE
ak
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KOSHTA
Signing time: 12/18/2024
10:59:46 AM