M/S R S Traders And Anr. vs. Superintendent Of GST, Range-Iv, And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, M/s. R S Traders & Anr., filed a writ petition challenging a show-cause notice dated June 20, 2024, issued in Form GST REG-17, proposing cancellation of their GST registration on grounds of fraud, wilful misstatement, and suppression of facts. The respondent CGST authorities submitted that the petitioners had already filed an application for revocation of the cancellation order on July 26, 2024, which was rejected as they did not appear before the authorities. The authorities also contended that the petitioners have an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, making the writ petition not maintainable.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable because the petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy in the form of an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court reasoned that petitioners cannot be permitted to approach the High Court without first exhausting the available statutory remedy. Consequently, the Court did not entertain the writ petition on its merits. However, to provide relief, the Court directed that if the petitioners file an appeal before the appellate authority within two weeks from the date of the order, the appellate authority shall hear and dispose of the appeal on merits expeditiously, preferably within six weeks of filing, after giving the petitioners an opportunity of hearing. The pendency of the writ petition was to be considered by the appellate authority.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as argued by the respondent revenue authorities. 2. Whether the petitioners should be permitted to approach the High Court directly without first exhausting the statutory appellate remedy. Contentions: Petitioner: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the petitioners regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or their stance on exhausting the alternative remedy. Revenue/State: The respondent CGST authorities argued that the petitioners have an alternative remedy in the form of an appeal under Section 107 of the said Act, and therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. They also pointed out that a revocation application was filed and rejected due to the petitioners' non-appearance.
Sections Cited
Section 29, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
5 17.02.2025 sb Ct 5
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURI ICTION APPELLATE SIDE
WPA 30706 of 2024
M/s. R S Traders & Anr. Versus The Superintendent of GST, Range -IV & Ors.
Mr. Sunny Nandy
Mr. Orindrila Ghosal
… For the petitioners.
Mr. Uday Shankar Bhattacharya
Mr. Tapan Bhanja
… For the respondent nos. 1 and 2
Challenging the show-cause notice dated 20th June, 2024, issued in Form GST REG-17, for cancellation of registration on the ground of fraud, wilful misstatement and suppression of facts, the instant writ petition has been filed.
At the very outset, Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the CGST authorities would submit that an application for revocation of the order of cancellation of registration under Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), has already been filed on 26th July, 2024 which according to him, has been rejected as the petitioners chose not to represent themselves before the authorities. He would also submit that the petitioners have an
2 alternative remedy in the form of appeal under Section 107 of the said Act and having regard thereto, the present writ petition is not maintainable.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and noting that the petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy in the form of appeal from an order cancelling the registration under the said Act, before the appellate authority under Section 107 thereof, I am of the view that the petitioners cannot be permitted to approach this Court without first exhausting the alternative remedy.
Having regard thereto, I am of the view that there is no scope to entertain the writ petition. However, If the petitioners approach the appellate authority by way of an appeal within a period of two weeks from date, the appellate authority having regard to the pendency of the writ petition before this Court shall hear out and dispose of the appeal on merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of such appeal upon giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
With the above observations and directions, the writ
3 petition is disposed of.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.