Exhausting Alternate Remedies: Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable Against Rejection of Time-Barred Appeals

Facts

Adjudication: The petitioner received a Show Cause Notice (SCN), filed submissions, and subsequently faced an adverse Order-in-Original (OIO).
Initial Challenge: A rectification plea was filed and disposed of. The petitioner initially filed a writ petition but withdrew it to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.
Appellate Rejection: The statutory appeal filed before the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) was rejected on the grounds of delay (limitation).
Writ Petition: The petitioner challenged this appellate rejection under Article 226, alleging a breach of natural justice (denial of personal hearing) during the appellate stage.
Department’s Defense: The Revenue argued that a Writ is not the appropriate forum when an efficacious alternative remedy (GSTAT/Appellate Tribunal) is available under the Act.

Decision

Final Verdict: In favour of the Revenue.
Ratio Decidendi:
- Rule of Discretion: The High Court held that while Article 226 provides wide powers, the existence of an effective alternative remedy acts as a rule of policy and convenience. Writ jurisdiction should not be exercised to bypass statutory appellate forums.
- Fact-Finding: Whether a notice preceded the rejection of the appeal or whether there was a genuine breach of natural justice are disputed facts. Such matters are more appropriately examined by the Appellate Authority or the GSTAT based on the record.
- Statutory Remedy: Since the GST framework provides a clear path for appeals (Section 107/112), the Court declined to interfere with the appellate order and dismissed the writ, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the appropriate statutory forum.

Key Takeaways

Respect the Hierarchy: Tax professionals must prioritize statutory appeals over writ petitions. High Courts are increasingly reluctant to entertain writs against appellate orders unless there is a total lack of jurisdiction or a patent constitutional violation.
Limitation is Crucial: If an appeal is rejected for delay, the first point of contest should be the specific “sufficient cause” for that delay before the Tribunal. Moving to the High Court directly often results in a dismissal and further loss of time.
Natural Justice Documentation: If a personal hearing is denied, ensure this is documented in the grounds of appeal to the next statutory level. The GSTAT has the power to remand the matter if the record confirms a breach of natural justice.
Liberty to Pursue: Even if a writ is dismissed, ensure that “liberty to approach the appropriate forum” is recorded in the order. This protects the petitioner from being barred by the principle of res judicata when filing the subsequent statutory appeal.

HIGH COURT OF ORISSA

Rajesh Kumar Kar

Additional Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Central Excise & Customs, Bhubaneswar^*

Harish Tandon, CJ.
and MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.

WP (C) No. 5192 of 2026

APRIL 16, 2026

Jaish Joshi, Adv. for the Petitioner. Mukesh Agarwal, Junior Standing Counsel for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. Challenging the Order dated 27^th January, 2026 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Central Excise & Customs, Bhubaneswar, opposite party No.1, this writ petition has been filed.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Order-in-Original dated 3^rd February, 2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Sambalpur-I Division, Sambalpur, opposite party No.2 being passed without proper appreciation of written submission filed opposing demand-cum-show-cause notice dated 29^th September, 2023, the petitioner filed application for rectification of order, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 29^th July, 2025.

3. The petitioner assailed both the orders before this Court in W.P.(C) No.33624 of 2025. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 9^th January, 2026 granting leave to withdraw and pursue grievance before the appropriate forum, which led to filing of appeal. The appeal came to be rejected on 27^th January, 2026 with the reason “Delay in submission of appeal”.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order so passed by the appellate authority without giving opportunity of hearing suffers vice of Section 107(8) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Since the order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice, the order warrants interference in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. Mr. Mukesh Agarwal, learned Junior Counsel appearing for the opposite parties opposed entertainment of this writ petition against the Order-in-Appeal, as alternative efficacious remedy is available under the statute. He would submit that the appellate authorities are empowered to consider the issue of violation of principles of natural justice.

6. Heard Mr. Jaish Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mukesh Agarwal, learned Junior Counsel appearing for the opposite parties.

7. At the outset it may be apposite to observe that the aspect of violation of principles of natural justice can be considered by the Appellate Authority/Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal. Whether the Appellate Authority on the facts and in the circumstances of the case has issued notice to the party concerned before rejecting the Appeal can very well be appreciated on perusal of record by the Tribunal. Therefore, such disputed question of fact is to be left for the appropriate authority to consider. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh (SC)/[2021] 48 GSTL 113 (SC)/[2021] 86 GST 665 (SC)/(2021) 3 SCR 406, held, inter alia, that where an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person, the High Court ought to restrain itself from exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and when a right is created by statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is made clear that this rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion.

8. In view of such enunciation of principles by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, this Court desists from entertaining this writ petition questioning the legality of the appellate order. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner, if so advised, to approach appropriate forum as available under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rules framed thereunder.

9. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition along with the pending Interlocutory Application (s), if any, shall stand dismissed.