Maa Dakhinakali W.C.S.Ltd, Cuttack Vs Chief Commissioner… — GST and Indirect Tax | Orissa HC (2025)

Maa Dakhinakali W.C.S.Ltd, Cuttack Vs Chief Commissioner… — GST and Indirect Tax | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of; petitioner relegated to exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal under the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 before the Appellate Authority.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition assailing the rejection of the rectification application ought to be entertained when a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 is available and all points are amenable to be agitated before the Appellate Authority. +1 more

Court's answer

A statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 is available to the petitioner and all points sought to be agitated in the writ petition are amenable to be agitated before the Appellate Authority.

Ratio / Principle

Though there is no absolute fetter on the writ Court in entertaining a writ petition when a statutory remedy by way of appeal is available, the Court may in a particular case refuse to exercise such discretion and relegate the parties to exhaust the statutory remedy.

Key takeaways

No distinction is made in Sub-section (1) of Section 107 of the Act on the basis of the nature of an order; any decision or order passed under the Act is amenable to be challenged by way of an appeal before the Appellate Authority.ratio¶22
The Court refused to exercise its discretion and relegated the petitioner to exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal provided under the Act.ratio¶23
The writ petition was filed on advice within the period of limitation for filing an appeal, and the petitioner appears to have acted bona fide on the advice extended.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CGST/SGST Act, 2017 — Section 161 — rejection of application for rectification — statutory appeal under Section 107 — Held: all points sought to be agitated in the writ petition are amenable to be agitated before the Appellate Authority; no distinction is made in Sub-section (1) of Section 107 on the basis of the nature of the order; though there is no absolute fetter on the writ Court, it may in a particular case refuse to exercise its discretion and relegate the party to the statutory remedy; petitioner had acted bona fide on advice, the writ petition having been filed within the limitation period for appeal — writ petition disposed of, petitioner relegated to exhaust the statutory appeal remedy.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.10096 of 2025

Maa Dakhinakali Mahila W.C.S. Limited

…. Petitioner

Ms. Itishree Tripathy, Advocate -Versus-

Chief Commissioner of Commercial …. Opposite Parties Taxes (CT) and Goods & Services Tax (GST) and others

Mr. Sunil Mishra, Standing Counsel

CORAM:

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER

Order No.

03.

09.07.2025

1. The order dated 19^th March, 2025 passed by the Authority

in rejecting the application for rectification under Section 161 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 is assailed in the instant writ petition.

The order communicated/uploaded on the portal contains two pages which according to Ms. Itishree Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be collated.

2. However, in course of hearing, we notice that there is a statutory remedy provided to the petitioner under Section 107 of

Page 1 of 3

the said Act and all points sought to be agitated in the instant writ petition is amenable to be agitated before the Appellate Authority.

3. We further find that the instant writ petition was filed on the advice having given to the writ petitioner within the period of limitations provided for filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The petitioner appears to have been acted bona fide on the advice extended in this regard. Though there is no absolute fetter on the part of the writ Court in entertaining the instant writ petition, when the statutory remedy by way of an appeal is available but the Court may in a particular case refused to exercise such discretion and may relegate the parties to exhaust the statutory remedy provided to such aggrieved person.

4. We do not find any distinction having made in SubSection-1 of Section-107 of the said Act on the basis of nature of an order but any decision of the order passed under the said Act is amenable to be challenged by way of an appeal before the Appellate Authority.

5. We thus, refused to exercise the discretion and relegate the petitioner to exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal provided under the said Act.

Page 2 of 3

6. This writ petition is thus, disposed of.

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman) Judge

A. Nanda

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANISHA NANDA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 11-Jul-2025 18:06:20

Page 3 of 3