M/S Yogendra Kumar Gupta vs. State Of Rajasthan

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Yogendra Kumar Gupta, a sole proprietorship, received a notice for demand recovery under the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the demand was beyond the period of limitation. The petitioner relied on a previous order by a Co-ordinate Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in M/s. Lakshya Bricks and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. The respondents, the State of Rajasthan and the Union of India, argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. They cited the Supreme Court judgment in State of Maharashtra and Others Versus Greatship (India) Limited and a Division Bench order of the same High Court in Tanushree Logistics Private Limited Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy. Considering the facts and circumstances, and specifically noting that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, the Court was not inclined to interfere. The Court dismissed the writ petition but granted the petitioner liberty to avail the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court further directed the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on merits without considering the question of limitation, in the event of the petitioner filing an appeal. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts should generally relegate parties to statutory remedies when available, especially when the appellate authority is directed to consider all grounds, including limitation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, as argued by the respondents. 2. Whether the demand notice issued for recovery under the CGST Act, 2017, is beyond the period of limitation, as contended by the petitioner. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the demand for recovery was time-barred and relied on a previous order of the High Court in M/s. Lakshya Bricks and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. to support their claim. Respondents' Contention: The respondents opposed the writ petition, asserting that the petitioner possessed an alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. They cited the Supreme Court's decision in State of Maharashtra and Others Versus Greatship (India) Limited and a Division Bench judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Tanushree Logistics Private Limited Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. to support their stance on the availability of the alternative remedy.