Recently, the Supreme Court in its judgment dated vs UCO Bank and Otherss disapproved the order of this Court in

petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndja praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to iSSue a writ direction or order more particularly in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the. impugned order-in-origin al No. 7812024-25-GST dated 22.01 .2025 and the consequent demand raised in Form DRC 07 bearing reference no Reference No 2D360125052058L dated 30-01-2025 passed by respondent no.1 are void illegal arbitrary without jurisdiction and without authority of law and consequently set aside the same lA NO: 1 OF 202s 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 pteased to stay the collection of tax pursuant to Order-in-Original No. 78I2O24'25-GST dated 22.01 .2025 and the consequent demand raised in Form DRC 07 bearing reference no Reference No 2D360125052058L dated 30-01-2025 passed by the Respondent No.1 pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. G. DURGA CHARAN Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Ms. PRAVALIKA REP SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES (senior standing counsel for CBIC) Counsel for the Respondent tto.i: Ms. P.SUBHASHREE REp SRI M. VIJAY KUMAR, , SC FORCENTRALGOVERNMENT The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION No.15741 of 2o25 ORDERIPeT fhe Hon'ble the Acting Ctuef Justice Sujoy Paul): Sri G. Durga Charan, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. Pravalika, learned crunsel representing Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, for respondent No.1 and Ms. P. Subhashree, learned counsel representing Sri M. Vij ay Kumar, learned Stalding Counsel for Central Government, for respondent No.2

2. The challenge mounted in this petition Iiled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the Order-in-Original (OIO) dated 22.OL2O25.

3. Criticizing the impugned OIO, learned counsel for tlle petitioner submits that the said order is bad in law lor twin reasons-i) the order is ex facie illegal because in the teeth of Section 73(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, if the tax was erroneously paid or short paid, they could hav6 asked for the replenishmeirt of the remaining amount of tax an} ii) principles of natural justice were violated. 2 1

4. We have considered both the points. No doubt, in certain situations, a petition can be entertained despite availability of alternative remedy such as violation of principles of natural justice, uires of provision is called in question and order is passed by an incompetent authority. This principle was iaid down by the Supreme Court in.Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, .ltlumbair. However, the said judgment was again considered by the Supreme Court in U.p. State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S. pandey and Anotherz and it was opined as under:- " 17. ...But normallg, the High Court should. not entertain u.trit petitions unless it is shottn thot there is something more in a case, something going to the root of tLe juisdiction of tLLe officer, qomething tahich uoutd shou.t thot it tuould be a case of palpable injustice to the utrit petitioner to force him to adopt the remedies prouided bg the statute. ...',

5. In the instant case, it is not argued that the impugned OIO is passed without authority of law or is passed by an incompetent authority. It is not shown, if the petitioner is relegated to avail the alternative remedy, it will cause any palpable injustice to it. I ' (1998) 8 SCC 1 ' lzoos; s scc 264

6. Recently, the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 1O.O4.2024 in the case of PHR Invent Educational Society Vs. UCO Bank and Otherss disapproved the order of this Court in W.P.No.5275 of 2021, dated 04.02.2022, wherein a Division Bench of this Court entertained a Writ Petition despite availability of alternative remedy. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court opined that merely because a petition IS maintainable, it is not necessary to entertain a petition' It is the discretion of the Court to entertain a petition and not a compulsion. The relevant paragraph reads thus: "15. It could thus be seen that, this Court has clearlg lrcId that the Htgh Court uill ordinarilg not entertain a petition under Article 226 oJ the Constitution if an eifectiae remedg is auailable to the aggrieoed person. It ho,s been held that this ntle applies usith greater rigour in matters inoolulnq recoaerll of trrxes. cess. fees. other tgpes of pubtic moneg dnd. the dues oJ banks and other finc;ncial institutions. The Court clearly obserued that, while dealing utith tte petitionS inuoluing challenge to the action taken for recouery of the public dues, etc., the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted bg Parliament and State Legislatures for recouery of such dues are a code unto themselues inasmuch as theg not only contain comprehensiue procedure for recouery of the dues but also enuisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the gieuance of ang aggrbued person. It has been held that, though the potuers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constihttion are of utidest omplitude, still the Courts cannot be obliuious of the rules of self-itnposed restraint euolued bg this Court. The Court further held that though the rule of exhaustion of alternatiue remedy one of comoulsion, is a ntle of discretion and not I I ( ( ' (zozq) a s.c.R. s+t 4 --- '- .1 stitl it is dfficult to Jathom ang reason whg the High Court should entertain a petition filed. under Article 226 of the Constitution.', (Emphasis Supplied)

7. Thus, even though the petition is maintainable, it cannot be said to be 'entertainabre" because of availab ity of statutory alternative remedy. No case is made out for short-circuiting the said alternative remedy and accordingly, this writ petition is not entertainable. Liberty is reseived to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy.

8. The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs Interlocutory applications, if aly pending, shall also //TRUE COPY// SD/. A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT . REGTSTRAR l^ ,i \- rt SECION OFFICER

1. The Suoerintendent of central Tax, Mancherial Range, [t4ancherial Division, z. ine Seiretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi - IMedchil Commissionerate 1 10001 One CC to SRl. G. DURGA CHARAN, Advocate [OPUC] One CC io Shr. OOttttttlC FERNANDES (senior standing counsel for CBIC) tOPUCl One Cb to SdI. N/, VIJAY KUMAR, SC FOR CENTRAL GOVERNIVENT loPUCl Two CD Copies To, J. 4.

5. .6; B'ni. aF !/ HIGH COURT DATED:1210612025 \ ORDER 1t{ E S 14 7'6 ((o (. o., \ 2 I AUG 2025

4.e J a .-) f: 1 WP.No.15741 of 2025 1 ,+ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS o g /z ,//3