Prasanna Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax
Held
The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable. The reasoning was based on the availability of an effective alternative remedy of appeal. The Court noted the procedural history, including a previous dismissal of a writ petition with liberty to appeal, and the subsequent action by the appellate authority. The Court concluded that the petitioner should avail the statutory appellate mechanism. The operative direction was to grant liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal within four weeks, and the issue of limitation shall not be raised against the petitioner. No other issue was expressly left undecided.
Facts
The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging an assessment order. Previously, the petitioner had approached the High Court against an assessment order dated 30.01.2013. That petition was dismissed with liberty to file an appeal. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the appellate authority, which set aside the assessment order and remitted the matter back to the assessing officer. Following this, the assessment was completed. The petitioner has now filed the present writ petition instead of availing the appellate remedy.
Key Issues
1. Whether the present writ petition is maintainable when an alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, as per Section 37 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) or equivalent SGST Act provisions. The petitioner argued that the writ petition is maintainable due to the prior history of litigation and the specific circumstances of the case. The respondents contended that the petitioner should pursue the statutory remedy of appeal as previously advised by the Court and that the writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when an effective alternative remedy exists.
Sections Cited
Section 37
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR AND HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA W.P. No. 25893 of 2024 ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Narendar)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for Central Tax – R1, Mr. Y. N. Vivekananda.
The present litigation has a history.
Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that on earlier occasion the petitioner had approached this Court against the assessment order, dated 30.01.2013 and this Court after hearing the parties was pleased to dismiss the petition with liberty to the petitioner to file appeal against the impugned proceedings and pursuant to the same an appeal came to be preferred before the appellate authority.
The appellate authority was pleased to intervene and set aside the order of assessment, remitting the matter back to the assessing officer. Thereafter, the assessment has been completed. Now, the writ petitioner has sought to pursue the matter by way of this writ petition instead of utilizing the remedy of appeal.
2 GN, J & KM, J WP_25893_2024
In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the instant writ pe
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 Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.