Writ Petition for "Expeditious Disposal" Cannot be Converted to Challenge Rejection Order; Statutory Appeal is the Remedy

Writ Petition for “Expeditious Disposal” Cannot be Converted to Challenge Rejection Order; Statutory Appeal is the Remedy

Issue

Can a petitioner, who initially filed a writ petition merely seeking the expeditious processing of a refund claim, subsequently challenge the rejection order passed during the pendency of that writ via an interlocutory application, or must they avail the statutory appellate remedy?

Facts

The Claim: The petitioner filed a refund application for the period February 2025, claiming refund with interest.
The Writ: Frustrated by the delay, the petitioner invoked the High Court’s writ jurisdiction solely to seek a direction for the expeditious processing and disbursement of the claim.
Department’s Action: During the pendency of the writ petition, the department issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN). The petitioner replied, and the authority passed a reasoned order rejecting the refund.
The Pivot: The petitioner filed an application (CAN 1 of 2025) within the existing writ petition to challenge this rejection order, arguing that the order suffered from a “jurisdictional error.”
Revenue’s Stand: The State argued that since a final order had been passed, the petitioner had an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act and could not bypass it.

Decision

The Calcutta High Court (implied from WBGST Act reference) disposed of the writ petition and the application without interfering with the rejection order.
Scope of Writ: The Court held that the original writ was filed only for “expeditious disposal.” Since the authority had passed an order (albeit a rejection), the original prayer stood satisfied/infructuous.
No Jurisdictional Error: The Court rejected the petitioner’s plea of jurisdictional error. It observed that by approaching the refund authority in the first place, the petitioner had accepted its jurisdiction to decide the matter (either allow or reject). They could not turn around and question that jurisdiction simply because the outcome was adverse.
Alternate Remedy: The Court affirmed that while writ jurisdiction exists notwithstanding alternative remedies, this was not a fit case for interference. The rejection order is an appealable order.
Outcome: The petitioner was relegated to the statutory appeal under Section 107 to challenge the merits of the rejection.

Key Takeaways

Writ Jurisdiction is Limited: A writ petition filed for “speedy disposal” cannot be automatically expanded to challenge the merits of the final order passed during its pendency. A fresh challenge (appeal) is required.
Doctrine of Election: A taxpayer cannot accept an authority’s jurisdiction to grant a refund but deny its jurisdiction to reject it.
Exhaust Statutory Remedies: High Courts will routinely dismiss writ petitions against assessment/refund rejection orders if the statutory appeal route (Section 107) has not been exhausted, unless there is a gross violation of natural justice or law.

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA

Century Products

State of West Bengal^*

Om Narayan Rai, J.

WPA No. 20849 of 2025
CAN No. 1 of 2025

NOVEMBER 12, 2025

Ms. Sweta Mukherjee and Ms. Sakshi Bagaria for the Petitioner. Nilotpal Chatterjee, Tanoy Chakraborty and Saptak Sanyal for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. Affidavit of service as filed today on behalf of the writ petitioner is taken on record.

2. This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith process the refund application dated 05.06.2025 and disburse the refund amount of ? 1,55,096/- (i.e., ? 77,548/- each under the heads of CGST and SGST) for the tax period of February’ 2025, along with the applicable interest for delayed disbursement of the said claim, in accordance with Section 56 of the CGST/WBGST Act read with Section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST/WBGST Act, and Rule 89 of the CGST/WBGST Rules, and relevant circulars issued thereunder.”

3. During pendency of the writ petition, the respondent GST authorities issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on September 9, 2025. The petitioner replied thereto on September 16, 2025 and ultimately an order was passed by the adjudicating authority on October 31, 2025 under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017 thereby rejecting the petitioner’s request for refund. The petitioner has filed an application being CAN 1 of 2025 assailing the said order dated October 31, 2025.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the notice to show cause issued to the petitioner as well as the order dated October 31, 2025 passed by the adjudicating authority under Section 54 of the said Act, 2017 suffer from jurisdictional errors.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the State respondents submits that the petitioner should not be allowed to challenge the adjudication orders by way of an application inasmuch as the writ petition had been filed seeking expeditious disposal of the petitioner’s application for refund and the same has been done. It is submitted that the petitioner has a statutory remedy before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the said Act of 2017.

6. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having considered the materials on record, this Court is of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, where the petitioner had approached this Court seeking expeditious disposal of the petitioner’s application for refund and such application has been disposed of, the petitioner should not be permitted to challenge the order disposing of the petitioner’s application for refund by way of an application.

7. Although in fit cases, this Court is not powerless to set aside orders passed during pendency of the writ petition notwithstanding availability of alternative remedy yet, this Court is of the view that this is not such a case where this Court should interfere with the order impugned on the basis of an application.

8. There does not appear to be such a jurisdictional error so as to persuade the Court to intervene. The very fact that the petitioner applied before the relevant authority for processing and dealing with the petitioner’s application for refund puts it beyond doubt that the authority concerned had jurisdiction to both allow the request as well as to reject the request.

9. In such view of the matter, this writ petition being WPA 20849 of 2025 is disposed of with the above observations.

10. CAN 1 of 2025 is disposed of without passing any order inasmuch as the order impugned by way of CAN 1 of 2025 is appealable in nature and this Court does not find any jurisdictional error having been committed in passing the order impugned so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

11. The petitioner shall be free to challenge the order dated October 31, 2025 before the appellate authority, in accordance with law.

12. Needless to mention that this Court has not gone into the merits of the petitioner’s application and the appellate authority shall decide the appeal, if any, filed by the petitioner without being influenced by any observation made herein.

13. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

14. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied as expeditiously as possible.