Writ Not Maintainable When Alternate Remedy Exists, Says Madras HC

By Author | July 15, 2025
Madras High Court – GST Judgement Update

Case Summary

In Eximio Services and Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. The Superintendent of GST & Central Excise [W.P. No. 20608 of 2025, dated June 11, 2025], the Madras High Court ruled that a writ petition is not maintainable when a statutory appellate remedy is available. However, the Court allowed the petitioner to file an appeal within four weeks, subject to a 25% pre-deposit. It also directed the department to permit withdrawal of this amount from the frozen bank account.

Background of the Case

Eximio Services and Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (“the Petitioner”), a registered GST taxpayer, challenged:

  • An Order-in-Original dated August 27, 2024, and
  • A bank attachment notice dated April 4, 2025, issued by the Respondents.

The Superintendent of GST & Central Excise passed the order following an assessment. This resulted in a demand and freezing of the Petitioner’s bank account.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The Petitioner made the following claims:

  • It filed all GST returns and attended the personal hearing.
  • GST was paid on rent to the landlord, who then paid the tax to the Government.
  • The landlord incorrectly reported the transaction as B2C instead of B2B, so the Input Tax Credit didn’t appear in the GSTR-2A.
  • Despite submitting supporting documents, the tax authority passed the order without considering the evidence or granting a proper hearing—violating natural justice.

Respondent’s Response

The Respondent argued that the Petitioner should have filed an appeal through the proper appellate channel. Filing a writ directly before the High Court was not appropriate since the statutory appeal process under the CGST Act was still open.

Legal Issue

Is a writ petition maintainable when an alternative appellate remedy is available under GST law?

Court’s Observations & Judgment

The Madras High Court ruled:

  • The Petitioner had a valid alternative remedy and could have filed an appeal before the appellate authority.
  • Bypassing the appellate route was improper; therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.
  • However, the Court allowed the Petitioner to file an appeal within four weeks of receiving the order, provided they deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount. This included 15% over and above the standard 10% requirement.

Additionally, the Court directed:

  • If funds are available in the frozen bank account, the Petitioner must be allowed to withdraw the 25% amount to comply with the pre-deposit condition.
  • Upon submission of payment proof, the department must immediately defreeze the bank account.
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter