APL Apollo Tubes’ Plea Against ₹14 Crore GST Demand Dismissed: Allahabad HC Says No Grounds to Bypass Statutory Remedy [Read Order]

The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra, held that there were no extraordinary or exceptional circumstances that would justify invoking the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The issue was brought about by inconsistencies discovered when the GST returns for the 2017-18 fiscal year were examined. A dispute arose regarding turnover adjustments under Column 5O of GSTR-9C, while another matter pertaining to duty credit scrips was settled.

The petitioner, APL Apollo received a notice under Section 61 of the Uttar Pradesh GST Act, 2017, on April 19, 2023, for discrepancies found in GST returns for FY 2017-18. In response, the petitioner filed a reply on May 25, 2023, which was deemed unsatisfactory. Consequently, a notice under Section 73 was issued addressing two issues: (i) mismatch concerning duty credit scrips between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, and (ii) an unexplained turnover adjustment of ₹77.88 crore shown in Column 5O of GSTR-9C.

While the petitioner's reply resolved issue (i), issue (ii) remained unresolved as the claimed high sea sales/purchases were not reported in the monthly or annual returns. As a result, a notice under Section 74 was issued. Despite further response and a hearing opportunity, the explanation was rejected. On February 5, 2025, an order was passed treating ₹77.88 crore as evaded turnover and directing payment of tax, interest, and penalty.

Step by Step Guide of Preparing Company Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss Account Click Here

Challenging this order, the petitioner approached the High Court directly, raising issues on merit and alleging violation of natural justice. However, the Court noted that these claims were not substantiated and amounted to inviting the Court to act as an appellate forum.

The bench citing the Supreme Court’s rulings in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh And Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. MB Power (MP) Ltd., the Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction can only be exercised sparingly in cases where alternative statutory remedies are either unavailable or clearly inadequate, which was not the situation in the present case.

 Know How to Prepare Estimation and Viability for Project Reports? Know more Click here

The court noted that “In the present case, the petitioner has failed to point out any extraordinary and exceptional circumstance for bypassing the statutory alternative remedy. Neither there has been a failure of principles of natural justice nor it is the case of the petitioner that proceedings were without jurisdiction, which are the grounds under which the bar of statutory remedy does not come in the way of entertaining the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

As a result, the Court denied the petition, stating that APL Apollo Tubes Ltd. is free to use the statute's appellate remedy. This reiterates the notion that judicial review cannot take the place of appellate forums simply because the parties disagree with the facts.

Earlier, there was an error in the reporting of the tax demand, which was incorrectly mentioned as ₹77 crore, it has since been duly corrected to ₹14 crore as instructed by Mr. Rajeev Kothari of APL Apollo Tubes.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates