High Court · 2025

&$*,,ji-+;lH,gti-n'*g-;t*i:*iiii:i%'"ilr"""#3?"r$ ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lheConstitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the atfidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue Wirt of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction declaring tne action of the 2nd Respondent in passing the impugned o,a ", n o ri g ina *"'t oi''o)or-'-t': *lT:::::: ji: JT: 1t:: "i; 2O2O-21 disallowing lnput Tax Credit and levyrng St*ion 73 of the CGST Act' 2017 as illegal' arbitrary' of the Principles of Natural Justice and set aside said amount 'nO"' contrary to law and tn 'toi"tn the same as null and void :i ;:? :: .tl -rr 1A NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the' circumstances stated in'the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned Order in Original No.14412024-25/ GST /Medchat dated 24.02.2025 for the year 2020-21 disallowing lnput rax credit and levying penalty at 10o/o on the said amount under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 20't 7 pending disposal of the Writ Petition as otherwise, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and hardship Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. B. KRTSHNA REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI A. KRANTT KUMAR REDDysc forcg Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES, SENIOR SC for cBtc The Court made the following: ORDER : 'i,- THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL ANI) THE HON,BLE SMT. JUSTICE NBUUT<E YARA WRIT PETITION No.1349L of 20.25 oRDER: (Per tlrc Hon'bte tl@ Actirq Chief Jrtstie Sujog Paul) Sri B-Krishna ReddY' learned counsel for the petitioner; ReddY, learned' counsel for Sri A.Kranthi Kumar for respondent No'l and Sri Dominic Fernandes' learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC' for respondent No'2'

2. Heard on admission' 3. This writ petition frled under Article 226 of the Constitution India assails the Order-in-Original No'144 12024- 25l GST/ Medchal, dated 24'O2'2025' 4 . Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that although the impugned order is appealable before the competent authority under the statute' this writ petition may be entertained because of violation of principles of naturar justice. To elaborate, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuat" t: " show cause notice issued to the petitioner, the petitione.. hl"d detailed reply. The said reply has not been considered and the \ \ 2 , impugned order contains mere reproduction of the reply filed by the petitioner. No reasons were assigned by the proper officer. 5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC appearing for respondent No.2 opposed the same and relied on paragraph No.13 to 15.5 of the impugned order to submit that discussions and findings' €rre very much there. Even for the sake of argument, if the discussions and hndings are erroneous, the same can be called in question before the appellate authorit5r.

6. No other point is pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in contending that in certain situations, despite availability of alternative remedy, the writ petition can be entertained. Breach of principles of natural justice is also one of such eventuality. This was laid down by the Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbail. This judgment of Supreme Court was again I (1998) 8 SCC I J in U.P. State Spinning Co' I,t,d' v' R'S' Pandey and considered Another2 and it was opined as under:- , / "yr"f -somethin'l tg slwid not '17. ...But normallg'.the .yq-h^:o"n entertain *nt'ittiii"iitr,t' n * :Y-" tttat ttere Ls " i"^*'*"i t' s omet hi ng ^"lJ ':x:n:f.:w;xtrt'y{:'S'#;r=i;x u)rit Wtitinner to fore him to aiol |)"""rt"i aa the statute' ' "" ln the light of this distinction made in R'S'Pandey (supra)' 8. the petitioner was required to show that ttre order was passed by an authority having no jurisdiction and if the petitioner is relegated to avail the alternative remedy' it will case palpable injustice to it' No jurisdictional issue is raised by the petitioner and therefore, in the light of the decision in R'S'Paadey (supra)' we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition' g. APart from this' recently, the Supreme Court in PHR Invent Vs. UCO Bank and Othersa tras turn down Telangana High Court tn where desPite availabilitY was entertained' The Educational SocietY a Division Bench judgment of ttre W.P.No.5275 of 2O2l' daLed' O4'O2'2O22' of a,lternative remedy' the writ petition ' t2oos) e scc 264 ' i:o:11 a s.c.tl- .'l t 4 Supreme Court opined that merely because a petition is maintainable, it is not necessa_ry to entertain a petition. It is the discretion of the Court to entertain a petition and not a compulsion. The relevalt paragraph reads as under: \ \ \ 71 enacted It coutd " 15. thus be seen that, this Court ha.s clearlg Letd that the lltgh Court urill ordinari lg not under Article 226 of the il an elfectiue remcdg is a tailable to person. It ha.s been lrcW that this rule applies urith greater tn m.atters other tgpes of public t toney and. the d.ues of and. other Jinanciat institution s- TTre Court clearly obseraed. tLnt, uhile dealing with the petitions inuol um.g cLnllerge to tLte action taken for recouera of the pubtic dues, etc-, tlte High Court must keep tn mind that the Legislation-s bg Parliament and State Legislatures .fo, recouery of such dues are a code unto tnasmuch as tl"ug not onlg contain comprehe nstue procedu re for recoue ry of *e dues but also en wsage constitution of qtasi-judicial bod-ies for redressa/ of the grieuance of any aggrieued person. It has been LeId that, though tLe pouers the High Court under Article 226 of the Constiht tion are of utid.est amplitude, still the CourLs cannot be obliuious of the ntles of self-imposed restraint euolued by thi.s Court. The Court further held. that thnugh tLe rttle of exhaustion of altematiue stfll ft is High Court under Article d.ifficutt to should. enterta.tn a petition tiled. 226 oJ the Constitution. " anu neoson uhg the as a rule and not th.emselues remedy (Emphasis Supptied) 5 lO.Inviewoftheforegoingdiscussion,sincethepetitionerhasa statutory effrcacious arternative remedy, we are not inclined to entertain this writ Petition' 11. Accordingly' the writ petition is disposed of by reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy available under law. No order as to costs' Miscellaneous Petitions Pending, if any, shatl stand closed' SRI NIVASA REDDY TANT REGIS SD/- /TTRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, \

1. The Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, No xcise and Service Tax, 2. The Asst. Commisslo ner of Central Tax and Central Medch al Division, Med chal Commtssto nerale, 8-2'77 13, AdithYa Towers, Sri Sai Enclave' Old Bowenpally, Secundera bad - 50001 1' ISHNA One CC to S IC FERNA One CC to SR PUCI uncel for CBIC IOPUC] nEOOV, Advocate NDES, Senior

5. One CC to SRI. A. KRA NTI KUMA R REDDY, SC Fo r CG {OPUCI 6. Two CD CoPies RI. B. KR I. DOMIN Co 3 4. E Block, Delhi-1 BM GJP I t I o (' :\\' 2 o sEP 2$25 ) "\.- . HIGH COURT DATED:0 3tOT t2}2s ORDER WP.No.13491 of ZO2S DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS I /'"1 ' 2