Facts of the Case

Spinner Marketing, a partnership firm at Athani, Thrissur District, represented by its Managing Partner P.J. Georgekutty, filed this writ petition before the Kerala High Court impugning Ext.P6 order dated 28.02.2023 issued by the Superintendent of Central Tax and Central Excise, Ayyanthole Range, Thrissur (the fifth respondent). The Union of India, the Principal Secretary (Finance, GST Wing), the GST Council, and the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) were also arrayed as respondents. When the petition came up for admission on 30.11.2023, counsel for the petitioner informed the Court that the petitioner had already filed a statutory appeal against Ext.P6, rendering the present writ petition infructuous.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a writ petition challenging an order under the CGST/Central Excise regime survives once the petitioner has already availed the statutory appellate remedy against the same order.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Counsel for the petitioner submitted that an appeal had already been filed against Ext.P6 order, and that the writ petition had therefore become infructuous.

Respondent's Arguments

  • No substantive contest was recorded; the order does not reflect any independent submission by the standing counsel for the respondents, as the matter was disposed of on the petitioner's own statement.

Court Order/Findings

  • The Court took on record the submission that an appeal had already been filed against the impugned order. Since the statutory appellate remedy had already been invoked against Ext.P6, the writ petition was rendered infructuous.
  • The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous, with no observations on the merits of the underlying dispute.

Important Clarification

  • Where a petitioner has already availed the statutory appellate remedy against the very order under challenge, a parallel writ petition against the same order will ordinarily be treated as infructuous rather than being kept pending or decided on merits.

Sections Involved

  • Article 226, Constitution of India — writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
  • Section 107, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — statutory appeal against orders passed by the proper officer, the remedy the petitioner had already invoked.

Decision – In Favour of

The petition was disposed of as infructuous on a purely procedural ground, without any adjudication on the merits of the challenge to Ext.P6. This cannot be characterised as a win for either side; it is best described as a disposal with no finding on merits, the petitioner being left to pursue its already-filed statutory appeal.

Related Case Laws

No directly on-point case notes are currently published on this site.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
  • Case No.: WP(C) No. 21122 of 2023
  • CNR: Not available
  • Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh
  • Decision Date: 30.11.2023
  • Disposal Nature: Dismissed as infructuous (appeal already filed against impugned GST order)

Link to Download the Order

Download the full judgment (PDF)

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.