M/S Super Roadways Through Its Partner Asees Narula vs. State Of Haryana Through Chief Secretary Haryana And Ors.
Held
The High Court held that in light of the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act read with the HGST Act, there was no occasion for the High Court to examine the validity and legality of the impugned order passed under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act. The Court's reasoning was based on the principle that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy exists, a writ petition should not be entertained. The Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction that if the petitioner prefers an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/HGST within 10 days from the date of the order, the Appellate Authority would consider it on merits and in accordance with law. No specific issue regarding the merits of the order under Section 129(3) was decided.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Super Roadways, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 28.02.2022, identified as MOV-09, passed under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act. The respondents, State of Haryana and others, through their counsel, stated that the petitioner's representation dated 21.02.2022 was considered before the impugned order was passed. The respondents further submitted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act read with the HGST Act. The High Court noted the availability of this appellate remedy.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act read with the HGST Act is available? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner sought to challenge the validity and legality of the impugned order through a writ petition. Respondents' Argument: The respondents contended that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act read with the HGST Act, and therefore, the High Court should not interfere at this stage. They also stated that the petitioner's representation was considered prior to the impugned order.
Sections Cited
Section 129(3), Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-7322-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision:07.04.2022 M/s Super Roadways ... Petitioner Vs.
State of Haryana & others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN.
Present: Mr. Ashok Kumar Babbar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, DAG, Haryana. ... TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J. (ORAL).
Challenge in the instant writ petition is to the MOV-09, order dated 28.02.2022 passed under Section 129 (3) of the CGST Act at Annexure P-15.
An advance copy of the writ petition has been served upon the respondents.
Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, learned DAG, Haryana representing the respondents takes a stand that prior to passing of the impugned order, the representation/request letter dated 21.02.2022 from the petitioner was duly considered.
It is further submitted that the petitioner would have a remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act read with HGST Act.
We are of the considered view that in the light of such remedy of appeal being available, there would be no occasion for this Court to examine the validity and legality of the impugned order at Annexure P-15.
Writ petitio
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 Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.