In a significant judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be entertained when there is an effective alternative statutory remedy available under the CGST Act, unless extraordinary circumstances are clearly established. The ruling came in the case titled Mayasheel Retail India Limited v. State of Chhattisgarh (WPT No. 84 of 2024), and was delivered by a Single-Judge Bench of Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal.
Key Observations of the Court:
The Court emphasized that although exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy do exist—such as where:
- There is a violation of the principles of natural justice,
- The statutory authority has acted in defiance of judicial procedure, or
- Repealed provisions have been wrongfully invoked,
—these exceptions must be clearly demonstrated to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
Justice Agrawal stated:
“The High Court generally refrains from entertaining a writ petition if a statutory remedy is available under the law, unless the case involves serious procedural lapses or a gross miscarriage of justice. The legal principles laid down in Thansingh Nathmal and Titaghur Paper Mills cases still hold the field.”
Case Background:
The petitioner, Mayasheel Retail India Limited, filed a writ petition challenging the demand order dated 11.01.2021 and Form DRC-07 dated 15.01.2021 issued by Respondent No. 3 under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act).
The petitioner argued that:
- The impugned order was passed without issuing a show-cause notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act,
- No personal hearing opportunity was provided,
- Even the summary of the show-cause notice was not issued in the prescribed format,
- The petitioner became aware of the order only on 29.02.2024, after receiving a recovery notice.
Subsequently, Respondent No. 3 issued further notices in Form GST ASMT-10 (dated 05.01.2024) and Form GST DRC-01 (dated 30.01.2024). After the petitioner’s reply, the demand was dropped entirely, yet the original order and recovery notice were not formally withdrawn, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court.
State Government’s Argument:
The State Government contested the maintainability of the writ petition, asserting that the petitioner failed to exhaust the appellate remedy available under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, which provides for an appeal to the Appellate Authority within three months of the communication of the order.
Court’s Decision:
The Court found no extraordinary circumstances in the case to justify bypassing the statutory appellate mechanism. It held that the availability of a remedy under Section 107 precluded the petitioner from directly approaching the High Court under Article 226.
The Court also addressed the issue of service of notice, holding that under Section 73 of the CGST Act, notices/orders are deemed to be validly served if:
- Tendered in person,
- Delivered through a messenger,
- Or made available on the common GST portal.
Thus, service through the common portal is a permissible mode under law.
Final Verdict:
While disposing of the petition, the Court ruled:
“The petitioner is at liberty to seek relief before the statutory Appellate Authority. Dismissal of the writ petition shall not act as a bar to pursue alternative legal remedies available under the CGST Act.”
SEO Keywords:
- CGST Act writ petition
- Chhattisgarh High Court GST case
- Article 226 alternative remedy
- Mayasheel Retail India Limited case
- GST demand order legal challenge
- Section 107 CGST appeal
- Natural justice in GST proceedings
- GST notice through common porta
Conclusion:
This ruling underscores the importance of following due statutory processes before invoking the constitutional remedy of a writ petition, particularly in GST disputes. Businesses must be cautious and exhaust all appellate remedies unless clear procedural violations or injustices are evident.