M/S Sea Princess Rept Proprietor Davinder Pal Singh vs. The Additional Commissioner Of UTGST, A And N Commissionerate And Ors
Held
The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable because an efficacious alternative remedy was available to the petitioner. The Court noted the submission by the respondents that a notification dated August 1, 2024, had appointed the Commissioner (UTGST) to perform the functions of an Appellate Authority under Section 21 of the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the newly appointed Appellate Authority in terms of the aforementioned notification. The Court made no order as to costs.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Sea Princess, represented by its Proprietor Davinder Pal Singh, filed a writ petition challenging an Adjudication Order dated March 29, 2023. This order was passed following a show cause notice dated August 12, 2022, issued under Sections 74(1), 50(3), and 122 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. The primary ground for the writ petition was the absence of an Appellate Authority under the UTGST Act to hear the petitioner's appeal. The respondents, represented by the Additional Commissioner of UTGST, submitted that a notification dated August 1, 2024, had appointed the Commissioner (UTGST) as the Appellate Authority under Section 21 of the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as amended by the notification dated August 1, 2024. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner filed the writ petition on the ground that no Appellate Authority was in place to hear their appeal against the Adjudication Order. Revenue's contention: The respondents argued that by virtue of a notification dated August 1, 2024, the Commissioner (UTGST) has been appointed as the Appellate Authority under Section 21 of the UTGST Act, 2017, thereby providing an efficacious alternative remedy to the petitioner.
Sections Cited
Section 74(1), Section 50(3), Section 122, Section 21
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] ***
WPA/777/2023
M/S Sea Princess Rept. Proprietor Davinder Pal Singh
Vs.
The Additional Commissioner of UTGST, A and N Commissionerate and Ors.
Mr. Aiswarya Rajyashree
… for the CGST
Mr. Shatardu Chakraborty Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi
... for the UTGST November 4, 2024 [SR] Item No.4
The instant application has been filed challenging the show cause notice dated 12th August, 2022 under sections 74(1), 50(3) and 122 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. 2. The petitioner was heard and an Adjudication Order dated 29th March, 2023 was passed. The writ petition has been filed against the adjudicating order on the ground that the Appellate Authority under the UTGST Act has not been located.
Mr. Shatardu Chakaraborty, learned counsel for the respondents submits that by a notification dated 1st August, 2024, the Lieutenant Governor ( Administrator) Andaman and Nicobar Islands has appointed the Commissioner (UTGST) to perform the functions as an Appellate Authority under section 21 of the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 4.
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 Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.