Madras High Court
M/S.The Marthandam Bee Keepers vs The Commissioner Of Cgst And Central ... on 18 February, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.3623 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
W.P.(MD)No.3623 of 2025
and
WMP (MD) No.2569 of 2024
M/s.The Marthandam Bee Keepers
Co-operative Society Ltd.,
Rep. by its President
C.Dora Christy : Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise,
Madurai
(Review Section @ Tirunelveli).
2. The Additional Director General,
The Directorate General of GST Intelligence,
Coimbatore Zonal Unit,
Coimbatore.
3. The Additional / Joint Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise,
Tirunelveli Sub Commissionerate,
Tirunelveli. : Respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.P.(MD)No.3623 of 2025
PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the
Impugned order in GEXCOM / ADJN/ GST/ADC/ 2076/2024 bearing
DIN 20241259XO000000FE3F dated 04.12.2024 on the file of 3rd
Respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.I.Romeo Roy Alfred
For Respondent : Mr.R.Gowrishankar
Sr.Standing Counsel for CGST
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of assessment dated 04.12.2024 issued by the third respondent.
2. No grounds have been made as indicated in the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and others vs. Commercial Steel Limited, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC
884. For better appreciation, the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:
“10. The respondent had a statutory remedy under Section 107. Instead of availing of the remedy, the respondent instituted a petition under Article 226. The existence of an https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6 W.P.(MD)No.3623 of 2025 alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. But a writ petition can be entertained in exceptional circumstances where there is:
(i) a breach of fundamental rights;
(ii) a violation of the principles of natural justice;
(iii) an excess of jurisdiction; or
(iv) a challenge to the vires of the statute or delegated legislation.
11. In the present case, none of the above exceptions was established. There was, in fact, no violation of the principles of natural justice since a notice was served on the person in charge of the conveyance. In this backdrop, it was not appropriate for the High Court to entertain a writ petition. The assessment of facts would have to be carried out by the appellate authority. As a matter of fact, the High Court has while doing this exercise proceeded on the basis of surmises. However, since we are inclined to relegate the respondent to the pursuit of the alternate statutory remedy under Section 107, this Court makes no observation on the merits of the case of the respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6 W.P.(MD)No.3623 of 2025
12. For the above reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order [Commercial Steel Co. v. Commr. of State Tax, 2020 SCC OnLine TS 291] of the High Court. The writ petition filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed. However, this shall not preclude the respondent from taking recourse to appropriate remedies which are available in terms of Section 107 of the CGST Act to pursue the grievance in regard to the action which has been adopted by the State in the present case.”
3. The arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are on the merits of the order, which do not come within the four parameters indicated in the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commercial Steel Limited cited supra. In view of the same, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority by filing an appeal as provided under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. In the event, if any appeal is filed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the same shall be entertained by the appellate authority without insisting on the limitation and disposed of in accordance with law, within a period of two months thereafter. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6 W.P.(MD)No.3623 of 2025
4. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
18.02.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No PKN To
1. The Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Madurai (Review Section @ Tirunelveli).
2. The Additional Director General, The Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Coimbatore Zonal Unit, Coimbatore.
3. The Additional / Joint Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Tirunelveli Sub Commissionerate, Tirunelveli https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6 W.P.(MD)No.3623 of 2025 VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
PKN W.P.(MD) No.3623 of 2025 18.02.2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/6