Brinto Kumar Roy vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Brinto Kumar Roy, Proprietor of B. K. Enterprise, filed a writ petition challenging an order in original dated December 27, 2022, passed by a respondent authority. The petitioner contended that the principle of natural justice was violated. The impugned order was passed after providing the petitioner with an opportunity of hearing. The respondent authorities appeared before the High Court.

Held

The High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal. The Court noted that the impugned order in original was an appellable order under the statute and contained elaborate reasons and discussion, having been passed after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy. However, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to file a statutory appeal within four weeks from the date of the order. The appellate authority was directed to consider and dispose of the appeal on its merits without raising the point of limitation. The dismissal of the writ petition was not to be a bar for the petitioner to raise the points argued in the writ petition before the appellate authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available under the GST Act? The petitioner argued that the principle of natural justice was violated by the respondent authority. The petitioner did not explicitly argue on the maintainability of the writ petition, but rather focused on the alleged violation of natural justice. The revenue, represented by Union of India and respondent CGST & CX, implicitly argued for the dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy by referring to the appellable nature of the impugned order.