Indian Institute Of Management vs. Cgst And Central Excise
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The Court noted the preliminary objection raised by the respondent that the impugned order, passed by the Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise, was appealable to the CESTAT under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Section 85 of the Finance Act. In view of the availability of this alternative and efficacious statutory remedy, the High Court found it inappropriate to entertain the writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. The Court did not delve into the merits of the case or the grounds for quashing the OIO.
What were the facts?
The petitioners, Indian Institute of Management (IIM) Indore and its Director, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore. They sought to quash an Order-in-Original (OIO) No. 07-08/COMMR/ST/IND/2019 dated 21.05.2019, passed by the Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise, Indore. The petitioners also sought interim relief from the recovery of dues demanded in the impugned order. The respondent, CGST and Central Excise Commissioner, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before the High Court, given the availability of an alternative statutory remedy? (Question of law) The petitioners sought to quash an order passed by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise. The respondent contended that the impugned order is appealable to the CESTAT under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Section 85 of the Finance Act, thus presenting an alternative and efficacious remedy. Assessee's contention: Not explicitly recorded in the judgment, but implied by filing the writ petition seeking to quash the order. Revenue's contention: The impugned order is appealable to the CESTAT under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Section 85 of the Finance Act, making the writ petition not maintainable.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 35F, Section 85
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: (i) That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of 1 (RAVI MALIMATH) CHIEF JUSTICE (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside OIO No. 07- 08/COMMR/ST/IND/2019 dated 21.05.2019 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise, Indore with all consequential reliefs and benefits to the petitioners. (ii) An ex-parte ad-interim relief from recovery of dues as sought to be recovered from the petitioner may kindly be granted. (iii) Any other further relief as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also please be granted. A preliminary objection is raised by the respondent to the effect that the impugned order is appealable to the CESTAT under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 85 of the Finance Act. In view of the availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy, we do not find it appropriate to entertain this petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. MSP
2
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
