M/S Marshall Construction vs. The Union Of INDIA And 6 Ors
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Marshall Construction, represented by its sole proprietor, filed a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court. The respondents were various authorities of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST). The petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition. The petitioner's counsel stated that in view of a previous order dated March 20, 2023, by a Division Bench of the same High Court in WA No. 188/2022, which held that a writ petition is not maintainable when a statutory remedy of appeal is available, the petitioner wished to pursue the alternative remedy. The GST counsel had no objection to this request.
Held
The Court held that in light of the order dated February 20, 2023, passed in WA No. 188/2022, and the decision of the Apex Court in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Others vs. Commercial Steel Limited, the writ petition was not the appropriate forum for adjudication. The Court acknowledged the existence of a statutory remedy for appeal. Consequently, the writ petition was closed as withdrawn. The petitioner was granted liberty to avail the statutory remedy by filing an appeal before the competent authority. No specific amount in dispute or tax period was mentioned in the judgment.
Key Issues
1. Whether a writ petition is maintainable before the High Court when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, as per the decision in WA No. 188/2022 and the Apex Court's ruling in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Others vs. Commercial Steel Limited. The petitioner argued that due to the binding precedent set by the Division Bench in WA No. 188/2022, which affirmed the principle that writ petitions are not to be entertained in the presence of statutory remedies, they wished to withdraw the current writ petition to avail the statutory appeal mechanism. The revenue (GST) did not contest this position and had no objection to the petitioner's prayer for withdrawal.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010071252023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1843/2023 M/S MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION REP. BY SHRI JATIN GOGOI, SOLE PROPRIETOR, AGED 59 YEARS GOLAI NO. 1, P.O. DIGBOI, PIN- 786171, DIST.- TINSUKIA, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPTT. OF REVENUE, CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI- 110001 2:THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GST HQRS GUWAHATI GST BHAWAN KEDAR ROAD MACHKHOWA GUWAHATI- 781001 ASSAM 3:JOINT COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX MILAN NAGAR F LANE P.O. C.R. BUILDING DIBRUGARH- 786003 4:THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Page No.# 2/3 TINSUKIA DIVISION DURGABARI ROAD P.O.- TINSUKIA- 786123 5:THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX TEZPUR DIVISION S.C. ROAD TEZPUR- 784001 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT (A/E) O
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.