Susanta Basuli vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Dibrugarh And Anr
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Susanta Basuli, filed a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court challenging an order dated 31.05.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Dibrugarh. The petitioner sought to have this order set aside. The impugned order itself indicated that any aggrieved person could file an appeal in Form ST-4 to the Commissioner Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Guwahati, within 60 days of communication. The respondents were represented by the standing counsel for GST.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable because an efficacious alternative statutory remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax Vs. M/S Commercial Steel Limited, which established that the appeal provided under the GST Act is an effective statutory remedy. Furthermore, a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court had previously ruled in a similar case (W.A. No. 188/2022) that writ petitions should not be entertained if a statutory appeal remedy is available. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, granting the petitioner three weeks to approach the appellate authority.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner under the GST Act? The petitioner argued for the setting aside of the impugned order. The respondent revenue authority contended that an alternative statutory remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax Vs. M/S Commercial Steel Limited (2021 SCC Online SC 884) and a Division Bench order of the Gauhati High Court in W.A. No. 188/2022, both of which held that the statutory appeal remedy under the GST Act is efficacious and that writ petitions are not to be entertained when such a remedy exists.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned in the judgment text provided, other than the reference to the GST Act for the appeal remedy.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER Date : 10-04-2023 Heard Mr. R.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the impugned Order dated 31.05.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner,
Page No.# 2/2 CGST should be set aside. Ms. Minakshi Deka, learned counsel appears on behalf of Mr. S.C Keyal, learned standing counsel for the GST. The impugned Order dated 31.05.2022 states in the very first page that any person deeming himself aggrieved by the order may appeal against the order in Form ST-4 to Commissioner Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Guwahati, within 60 (sixty) days from the date of communication. As there is an alternative remedy available, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. Further, in the case of Assistant Commissioner of State Tax Vs. M/S Commercial Steel Limited, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 884, the Apex Court has laid down the law that the remedy of appeal under the provisions of the GST Act is an efficacious statutory remedy. Further, the Division Bench of this Court in its Order dated 20.02.2023 in W.A. No. 188/2022 had also held that when the statutory remedy of filing an appeal was available to the writ petitioner, the writ petition was not fit to be entertained. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed, with liberty being given to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. The petitioner is accordingly granted 3 (three) weeks time to approach the appellate authority.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Reproduced from the public record of the Gauhati High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.