Case Details:
Particular | Details |
Case No. | W.P.(MD)NO. 11977 of 2020 |
Case Name | Hi-Tech Arai (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax & Central Excise |
Court | Madras High Court |
Date of Judgement | 04-08-2021 |
Citation | GIG-CLS-0066 |
Â
Issue- In the above case, the petitioner has prayed to quash the order passed by respondent authority alleging that being issued without jurisdiction and in clear violation of section 140(1) and 140 (7) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Petitioner contented that there has been an error apparently on the face of the record, and in such case of error, if appeal is filed, there may not be some proper interpretation and therefore, justice may not be rendered to the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner approach this Court, without availing the appeal remedy as has been provided under the provisions of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Held- It was held that in both ways, the petitioner has got alternative appeal remedy or remedy of review to rectify the error under section 161 of the Act. While that being so, in view of the settled legal position, where except under two exceptions for want of jurisdiction and violation of principles of natural justice, writ petitions are not entertained without exhausting the appeal remedy, especially, in respect of revenue matters (tax matters), the hierarchy of forums by way of appeals as has been provided, the assessee/petitioner is expected to exhaust the said appeal remedy and without exhausting the same, no writ petition can be entertained, straightaway without the two circumstances available as indicated above. In view of the appeal remedy available for the petitioner, the petitioner is hereby relegated to approach the appellate authority and also the original authority, if in case he wants to invoke Section 161 of the Act, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and once such endeavour is made by the petitioner, the same shall be entertained by the concerned authority, either by the appellate authority or by the original adjudicating authority and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months thereafter.