Super Star Exports vs. The State Of Ap

Held

The High Court held that the writ petition is 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 issued by a competent authority. However, the Assessing Authority had already considered and rejected this objection, finding that the Additional Commissioner who issued the authorization had jurisdiction across the entire state. The Court opined that if the petitioner felt aggrieved by this finding on the competence of the authorizing authority, such a plea could and should be raised before the statutory appellate forum. The Court explicitly stated that it had not made any observations on the merits of the finding regarding the jurisdiction of the authority issuing the authorization, and had proceeded solely on the basis of the finding recorded by the Assessing Authority, which the petitioner had not successfully countered. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Facts

The petitioner, Super Star Exports, challenged an order dated 30.11.2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Respondent No. 4), for the tax period 01.07.2017 to 04.11.2022, directing payment of GST. 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 beyond the date specified in a notification dated 09.12.2019. The respondents raised a preliminary objection, stating that the order was appealable under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, and thus, the writ petition should not be entertained due to the existence of an alternative statutory remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in the High Court, given the existence of a statutory alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that while a statutory appeal remedy exists, the writ petition is maintainable because the authorization for inspection, search, and seizure was issued without jurisdiction by the Additional Commissioner (ST) on 05.11.2022, which was contrary to Notification Ex.P8 dated 09.12.2019. This jurisdictional defect, the petitioner contended, rendered all subsequent proceedings void. Revenue's contention: The respondents, through the Government Pleader, raised a preliminary objection that the order passed by the Assessing Authority is appealable under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, and therefore, the writ petition should not be entertained due to the availability of this statutory alternative remedy.