Goyal Agencies Through Its Proprietor Sh. Sachin Goyal vs. The Commissioner. Central Goods And Services Tax, Delhi (West)

W.P.(C)/10669/2024HC DelhiGSTCNR DLHC01046446202402 August 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA2 pages

For Petitioner: Mr. Ravi Kant Chandok, Mr. Vasdev Lalwani, Mr. Umesh Sarwal, Mr. Tushar Sahni and Mr. Siddhanth Sarwal, AdvsFor Respondent: Mr. Aakarsh Srivastava, SC

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioners, Faridabad Marketing, Om Sai Traders, and Goyal Agencies, have filed writ petitions before the Delhi High Court. These petitions challenge orders passed by the Appellate Authority, which were themselves appeals against a common order-in-original dated 10.03.2023. The core of the dispute appears to revolve around questions of fact. The respondent is the Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, Delhi (West). The Ministry of Finance, Government of India, issued a notification on 31.07.2024 establishing the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) with effect from 01.09.2024.

Held

The Delhi High Court held that it would not entertain the present writ petitions. The Court reasoned that the petitioners have an effective alternate remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act, 2017) and the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (DGST Act, 2017). Furthermore, the Court noted the notification dated 31.07.2024 establishing the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) with effect from 01.09.2024. In light of the availability of this statutory appellate mechanism, the Court deemed it inappropriate to exercise its writ jurisdiction. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts should generally relegate parties to statutory remedies when they are effective and available, especially when a specialized appellate tribunal has been established. The petitions were disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to avail their alternate statutory remedies.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Delhi High Court should entertain writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Appellate Authority when an effective alternate statutory remedy of appeal to the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) is available under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/DGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners implicitly argue for the High Court's intervention by filing writ petitions, suggesting that the available alternate remedy might not be effective or that there are grounds for direct High Court intervention. However, the judgment does not explicitly record their arguments regarding why they approached the High Court directly. Respondent's Contention: The respondent, through the Standing Counsel, likely contended that the writ petitions are not maintainable due to the existence of an effective alternate statutory remedy under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017, and the establishment of the GSTAT.

Sections Cited

Section 112

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (3 matters)

W.P.(C) 10638/2024

W.P.(C) 10642/2024

W.P.(C) 10669/2024

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

$~17, 18 and 21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10638/2024 and CM APPL. 43766/2024 (17) FARIDABAD MARKETING

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ravi Kant Chandok, Mr. Va ev Lalwani, Mr. Umesh Sarwal, Mr. Tushar Sahni and Mr. Siddhanth Sarwal, Advs.

versus

THE COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX, DELHI WEST

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Aakarsh Srivastava, SC

+ W.P.(C) 10642/2024 and CM APPL. 43827/2024 (18) OM SAI TRADERS

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ravi Kant Chandok, Mr. Va ev Lalwani, Mr. Umesh Sarwal, Mr. Tushar Sahni and Mr. Siddhanth Sarwal, Advs.

versus

THE COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DELHI – WEST

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Aakarsh Srivastava, SC

+ W.P.(C) 10669/2024 and CM APPL. 43904/2024 (21) GOYAL AGENCIES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SH. SACHIN GOYAL

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ravi Kant Chandok, Mr. Va ev Lalwani, Mr. Umesh Sarwal, Mr. Tushar Sahni and Mr. Siddhanth Sarwal, Advs.

versus

THE COMMISSIONER. CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX, DELHI (WEST)

.....Respondent

Throug

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.

Create a free account Sign in

See plans and prices

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 Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.