M/S GENNEX LABORATORIES LTD. vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER
What did the Supreme Court hold?
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. It was of the view that it would be just and equitable to grant the appellant an opportunity to avail the statutory remedy. Accordingly, the appellant was granted a period of 30 days to file a statutory appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal was directed to entertain the appeal as having been filed in time. The Supreme Court explicitly stated that it had not considered the matter on merits and that it would be open to both sides to raise all available contentions before the Tribunal. For the connected appeal, the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the file of the Sales Tax Tribunal to be consolidated with the appeal permitted to be filed by the judgment in the other appeal.
What were the facts?
The appellant, M/s Gennex Laboratories Ltd., was aggrieved by an order dated 12.09.2014 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1684 of 2014. The High Court had noted that the appellant had not availed the statutory remedy available before the Sales Tax Tribunal. The appellant filed a Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court. The respondents were the Commercial Tax Officer, Hyderabad, and another. The Supreme Court, in the nature of the order it proposed to pass, refrained from discussing the merits of the case. The Supreme Court also considered Civil Appeal No. 8766 of 2017, arising from Special Leave Petition (C) No. 16651 of 2015, which was related to an order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court was justified in not entertaining the writ petition when the statutory remedy of appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal was available and not availed by the appellant? (Question of law and fact, concerning the availability and exhaustion of alternative remedies). Assessee's contention: Not explicitly recorded in the judgment. However, the appeal to the Supreme Court implies a challenge to the High Court's order, likely arguing for an opportunity to pursue the statutory remedy. Revenue's contention: Not explicitly recorded in the judgment. However, the High Court's order, which the Supreme Court is setting aside, likely relied on the principle of alternative remedy. The learned counsel for the State was heard by the Supreme Court.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T KURIAN, J. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8765 OF 2017
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 19430 OF 2015
Leave granted.
This is a case where the appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 12.09.2014 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1684 of 2014. 3. In the nature of the order we propose to pass in this case, we have to necessarily refrain ourselves from any discussion on merits. Suffice only to note that, among other things, the High Court has noted the fact that the appellant had not availed the 2 statutory remedy open to them before the Sales Tax Tribunal.
In the nature of the dispute, we are of the view that it will be just and equitable to grant that opportunity to the appellant, having heard the learned counsel appearing for the State as well.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned Judgment of the High Court is set aside. The appellant is granted a period of 30 days to challenge the orders by filing a statutory appeal before the Tribunal. In the event of such an appeal being filed, the same shall be entertained by the Tribunal as having been filed in time.
We make it clear that we have not considered the matter on merits and it will be open to both sides to raise all available contentions before the Tribunal. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8766 OF 2017
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 16651 OF 2015]
Leave granted.
In view of the Judgment passed in Civil Appeal No. 8765 of 2017 above, the order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal is set aside. The appeal is restored to 3 the file of Sales Tax Tribunal and the same shall be heard by the Tribunal by consolidating with the appeal that is permitted to be filed by the Judgment passed in Civil Appeal No. 8765 of 2017 above.
In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of.
.......................J.
[ KURIAN JOSEPH ] .......................J.
[ R. BANUMATHI ] New Delhi; July 10, 2017.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
