Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. State Of Rajasthan

Held

The Court held that an appeal lies against an order passed under Section 74 of the RGST/CGST Act, 2017, in terms of Section 107 of the same Act. The petitioner had approached the High Court directly without availing this statutory remedy. Consequently, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The reasoning was based on the established principle that statutory remedies must be exhausted before seeking extraordinary jurisdiction from the High Court. The ratio decidendi is that writ petitions are generally not maintainable when an equally efficacious alternative remedy, such as a statutory appeal, is available. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition but granted liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal within one month from the date of the order. The Appellate Authority was directed to examine the appeal after giving an opportunity of hearing and decide it by a speaking order within two months thereafter. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Larsen and Toubro Limited, through its Power of Attorney Holder Mr. Shalil Kumar Sharma, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur. The respondents were the State of Rajasthan, through the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, and the Union of India, through the Commissioner of CGST, Jaipur. The writ petition challenged an order passed under Section 74 of the RGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner approached the High Court directly without first availing the statutory remedy of appeal. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute were not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner bypassed the appellate mechanism provided by the Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner was required to exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the RGST/CGST Act, 2017, before approaching the High Court by way of a writ petition, when an appeal lies against an order passed under Section 74? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner did not present any arguments before the Court, as the judgment notes that the petitioner approached the Court without availing the statutory remedy. Therefore, no specific contentions were recorded for the petitioner regarding this issue. Respondent's Contention: The respondents implicitly argued that the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 is available and should be exhausted before approaching the High Court. The judgment explicitly states that an appeal lies against the order passed under Section 74 in terms of Section 107 of the RGST/CGST Act, 2017.