Mr. Pawan Bhan And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioners, Mr. Pawan Bhan and Another, are aggrieved by an order dated 28th October 2021, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Division-II, Noida. They challenged this order on various grounds, including improper service of notices. The respondents, represented by learned standing counsel and Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, pointed out that the petitioners have an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, which they have not availed. The Court noted that several factual issues needed to be determined.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy. The Court reasoned that since various factual issues needed to be determined to ascertain the facts of the case, the appropriate forum for such adjudication would be the appellate authority established under the CGST Act. The Court explicitly stated its inclination not to entertain the writ petition on these grounds. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, generally relegate parties to alternative statutory remedies when such remedies are available and adequate, especially when factual disputes are involved. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition, with a liberty granted to the petitioners to prefer an appeal within three weeks from the date of the order. If such an appeal is filed, it shall be entertained on merits and dealt with in accordance with the law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners are aggrieved by the order and have raised grounds challenging its validity, implying they believe the order is fundamentally flawed. They have approached the High Court via a writ petition, suggesting they may have perceived the grounds for challenge as being beyond mere factual disputes or that the alternative remedy might not be efficacious in their specific circumstances. Respondent's Contention: The respondents argued that the petitioners have a clear and available alternative statutory remedy of preferring an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. They contended that this remedy should be exhausted before approaching the High Court through a writ petition. The respondents also highlighted that factual issues arise, which are typically dealt with by the appellate authority.