Priyansu Timber vs. Union Of INDIA Through Secretary

Facts

The petitioner, Priyansu Timb, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The respondents included the Union of India and others. The petitioner had not exhausted the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. Upon facing this objection, the petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to pursue their right of appeal under the relevant statute. The Court granted this liberty, noting that the period spent by the petitioner in pursuing the writ petition would be excluded for the purpose of computing the statutory period of limitation for filing the appeal. All pending miscellaneous applications were also to stand disposed of.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. Consequently, the Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The Court further directed that the period spent by the petitioner in pursuing the present writ petition before this Court shall stand excluded for the purpose of computing the statutory period of limitation for filing an appeal. This decision is based on the principle that a litigant should not be prejudiced by pursuing a remedy in the wrong forum, and the time spent in such pursuit should, in appropriate circumstances, be condoned or excluded when they subsequently resort to the correct statutory remedy. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of as withdrawn.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has exhausted the statutory alternative remedy of appeal available under the GST law? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning the availability and applicability of appellate procedures). 2. Whether the period spent by the petitioner in pursuing the writ petition before this Court should be excluded for the purpose of computing the statutory period of limitation for filing an appeal? (Question of law, concerning the interpretation of provisions related to condonation of delay or exclusion of time). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they had not exhausted the statutory remedy and sought liberty to withdraw the writ petition to pursue their appeal. They implicitly contended that the time spent in the writ proceedings should be considered for limitation purposes. Revenue/State's contention: The respondents, through their learned counsel, raised the objection that the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory alternative remedy. No specific argument was recorded regarding the exclusion of time.