Harish Chandra Hota vs. CT And GST Officer, Koraput

Held

The High Court held that the order dated 3rd February, 2022, was an appealable one. Consequently, the Court was not inclined to interfere with the matter at that stage through its writ jurisdiction. The Court's reasoning was based on the principle that when a specific statutory remedy of appeal is available, the High Court should ordinarily direct the petitioner to avail that remedy. The Court explicitly clarified that it had not expressed any view on the merits of the case. The operative direction was to permit the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy in accordance with law. The Court further directed that if an appeal is filed not later than 1st February, 2023, accompanied by an application for condonation of delay explaining the delay due to the pendency of the writ petition, the Appellate Authority should take it into account.

Facts

The petitioner, Harish Chandra Hota, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack challenging an order dated 3rd February, 2022, passed by the CT & GST Officer, Koraput Circle. The specific nature of the order and the tax period(s) involved are not detailed in the judgment. The amount in dispute is also not stated. The procedural history leading to the writ petition is not elaborated upon, other than the fact that the petitioner is seeking intervention from the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available against the impugned order, as per Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner approached the High Court by way of a writ petition, implying a belief that the writ jurisdiction was appropriate or that the alternative remedy was not efficacious. However, the judgment does not record specific arguments from the petitioner regarding why the writ petition should be entertained despite the appealable nature of the order. Revenue's Contention: The Opposite Parties, represented by the Additional Standing Counsel and Junior Standing Counsel, likely argued that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017.