2025 (6) TMI 509 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternate efficacious remedy in the nature of an appeal - HELD THAT - There can be no two views or quarrel over the proposition. However when the remedy of appeal is very much available for the petitioner and relying on the Apex Court judgment in Greatship (India) Limited 2022 (9) TMI 896 - SUPREME COURT the petitioner must avail the same first and then approach this Court or the appropriate forum. The petition is dismissed.

Summary

The Bombay High Court, through Hon'ble JJ. R.G. Avachat and Sandipkumar C. More, declined to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, noting the petitioner has an "alternate efficacious remedy in the nature of an appeal before the appellate authority under the Goods & Service Tax (GST) Act." The petitioner relied on precedents including *Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer* (MANU/SC/0086/2023) and *KNR Srirangam Infra Pvt. Ltd. v. State Tax Officer* (MANU/TN/6128/2024) to argue that a writ is maintainable when the order is a nullity, especially post a CBDT Circular dated 26/6/2024. The respondents cited the Apex Court's ruling in *The State of Maharashtra v. Greatship (India) Limited* (2022 AIR SC 4408), emphasizing that "when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievance and that too in a fiscal statute, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation." The Court held that since an appeal remedy exists, the petitioner must first exhaust that remedy before approaching the High Court, thus dismissing the petition.