Writ Of Certiorari Not Issued As A Matter Of Course, But Granted At Discretion Of Superior Court: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that the writ of certiorari is discretion granted to a superior court to review and quash decisions of lower courts, tribunals, or administrative bodies and is not issued as a matter of course.While dealing with the challenge to the order under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and the subsequent order of the first appellate...
The Allahabad High Court has held that the writ of certiorari is discretion granted to a superior court to review and quash decisions of lower courts, tribunals, or administrative bodies and is not issued as a matter of course.
While dealing with the challenge to the order under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and the subsequent order of the first appellate authority, the bench comprising of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that:
“The writ of certiorari is not issued as a matter of course, but rather it is granted at the discretion of the superior court. Generally, certiorari is issued in cases involving errors of law apparent on the face of the record, jurisdictional issues, or procedural irregularities that may have a substantial impact on the fairness and legality of the proceedings.”
The penalty order under Section 129 of the CGST Act was passed on the grounds that the goods of the petitioner were not accompanied by the e-way bill. Subsequently, the first appellate authority upheld the penalty order.
The Court observed that both authorities had failed to consider that one e-way bill had been generated before interception and the other was generated after interception but before show cause notice could be issued to the petitioner. No intention to evade tax was established. Accordingly, the Court held that both authorities had exceeded their jurisdiction under the CGST Act.
“As held by this Court in Hindustan Herbal Cosmetics v. State of U.P. , reported in [2024] taxmann.com 200 (Allahabad), intention to evade tax is desideratum for the imposition of penalty. I am of the view that the authorities have acted beyond jurisdiction and imposed tax without there being any cogent reason for the same,” it said.
The Court observed that the writ of Certiorari which in Latin means “to be more fully informed” plays a pivotal role in ensuring the rule of law and judicial oversight over administrative actions, providing a mechanism to correct errors and prevent the abuse of power.
Relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and Another v. Bikartan Das and Others and Nagendra Nath Bora and Another v. The Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeal, Assam and Others, the Court held that the authorities had exceeded their jurisdiction and thus warranted the issuance of a writ of certiorari against their orders.
Accordingly, the penalty order and the subsequent order of the first appellate authority were quashed.
Case Title: M/S Falguni Steels vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 59 [Writ Tax No. 146 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 59