Telangana High Court
M/S. Ramakrishna Medical Cloth And ... vs Superintendent Of Central Tax on 12 June, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT PETITION No.15741 of 2025
ORDER(Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul):
Sri G. Durga Charan, learned counsel for the petitioner;
Ms. Pravalika, learned counsel representing Sri Dominic
Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, for
respondent No.1 and Ms. P. Subhashree, learned counsel
representing Sri M. Vijay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for
Central Government, for respondent No.2.
2. The challenge mounted in this petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India is to the Order-in-Original (OIO)
dated 22.01.2025.
3. Criticizing the impugned OIO, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the said order is bad in law for 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 have
asked for the replenishment of the remaining amount of tax and
ii) principles of natural justice were violated.
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, vires of provision is called in question and
order is passed by an incompetent authority. This principle was
laid down by the Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v.
Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai 1. However, the said
judgment was again considered by the Supreme Court in U.P.
State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey and Another 2 and it
was opined as under:-
"17. ...But normally, the High Court should not
entertain writ petitions unless it is shown that there is
something more in a case, something going to the root of
the jurisdiction of the officer, something which would
show that it would be a case of palpable injustice to the
writ petitioner to force him to adopt the remedies
provided by 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.
1 (1998) 8 SCC 1
(2005) 8 SCC 264
6. Recently, the Supreme Court in its judgment dated
10.04.2024 in the case of PHR Invent Educational Society Vs.
UCO Bank and Others 3 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 clearly
held that the High Court will ordinarily not
entertain a petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution if an effective remedy is available to
the aggrieved person. It has been held that this
rule applies with greater rigour in matters
involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types
of public money and the dues of banks and other
financial institutions. The Court clearly observed that,
while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to
the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc., the
High Court must keep in mind that the legislations
enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for
recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves
inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive
procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage
constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the
grievance of any aggrieved person. It has been held that,
though the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution are of widest amplitude, still the Courts
cannot be oblivious of the rules of self-imposed
restraint evolved by this Court. The Court further held
that though the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy
is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion,
(2024) 4 S.C.R. 541
still it is difficult to fathom any reason why 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 "entertainable" because of availability 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 reserved to the petitioner to avail the
alternative remedy.
8. The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
___________________
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ
____________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 12.06.2025
Myk/tsr
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT PETITION No.15741 of 2025
(Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)
Date: 12.06.2025
Myk/tsr
