M/S. Sai Takshit Traders vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the existence of a statutory alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court noted that the petitioner's primary argument to bypass the appeal was that the authorization for inspection, search, and seizure was not granted by the competent authority. However, the Assessing Authority had already considered this objection and rejected it, holding that the Additional Commissioner who issued the authorization had jurisdiction to do so across the entire state. The Court found no reason to interfere at this stage, stating that the petitioner could raise the plea regarding the competence of the authority granting the authorization before the Appellate Authority. The Court explicitly stated that it had not made any observations on the merits of the finding on the jurisdiction of the authority issuing the authorization, and had proceeded solely on the ground of the existence of the statutory alternative remedy. The writ petition was dismissed on this ground.

Facts

M/s. Sai Takshit Traders (Petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 28.11.2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Respondent No. 4). The order directed the petitioner to pay GST for the tax period 01.07.2017 to 04.11.2022. The petitioner argued that the authorization for inspection, search, and seizure was issued without jurisdiction by the Additional Commissioner (ST), Vijayawada, on 05.11.2022, as it was allegedly not in accordance with Notification Ex.P8 dated 09.12.2019. The State (Respondents) raised a preliminary objection, contending that the order was appealable under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, and therefore, the writ petition should not be entertained.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in the presence of a statutory alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the writ petition was maintainable because the authorization for inspection, search, and seizure was issued without jurisdiction. This was based on the assertion that the Additional Commissioner (ST), Vijayawada, who issued the authorization on 05.11.2022, lacked the authority to do so as per Notification Ex.P8 dated 09.12.2019. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings were vitiated by lack of jurisdiction. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the order passed by the Assessing Authority is appealable under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. They contended that due to the existence of this statutory alternative remedy, the writ petition ought not to be entertained.