Appeal Dismissed for Availability of Statutory Remedy under GST

Case Title: APL Apollo Tubes Limited v. Commissioner, State Tax GST, UP & Another
Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Petition No.: WRIT TAX No. 1099 of 2025
Date of Judgement: 17.04.2025
Relevant Sections:

• Section 61, 73 & 74 of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017

• Article 226 of the Constitution of India
  Category of Dispute: Demand of Tax, Penalty & Interest on turnover adjustment

Facts of the Case (Paras 2–3)

• The petitioner was issued a notice under Section 61 for discrepancies in GST returns (2017–18).

• Reply was filed but not accepted, leading to a notice under Section 73 for two issues: (i) Duty credit scrip difference, (ii) Turnover adjustment of ₹77.88 crore shown in GSTR-9C Column 5O.

• Issue (i) was accepted, but on issue (ii), the authority found claims of high-sea sales/purchases not reflected in monthly/annual returns.

• A Section 74 notice followed; reply and hearing were granted, but rejected. Order dated 05.02.2025 demanded tax, penalty, and interest on ₹77.88 crore as evaded turnover.

Questions in Consideration (Paras 4–5)

• Whether the writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against an order appealable under the GST Act?

• Whether allegations of violation of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction are substantiated to bypass statutory appeal?

Court’s Observations (Paras 6–7)

• Availability of an appeal is a statutory remedy, and writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited to exceptional cases.

• Cited Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. MB Power (2024) 8 SCC 513 and Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P. (2021) 6 SCC 771—writ can be entertained only if natural justice is violated or jurisdiction is absent.

• Petitioner failed to prove any such extraordinary circumstance; pleas of natural justice/jurisdiction were unsubstantiated.

Judgement of the Court (Paras 7–8)

• Court refused to act as an appellate body over the assessment order.

• Writ petition dismissed; petitioner directed to avail statutory appeal remedy.

Between Fine Lines

1. The petitioner challenged a GST demand of ₹77.88 crore through writ jurisdiction.

2. High Court emphasized that writ is not a substitute for appeal.

3. No violation of natural justice or excess jurisdiction was found.

4. Court dismissed writ, upholding the principle of exhausting remedies.

5. Petitioner must file statutory appeal under GST law.

Summary of Referred Cases

Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”