M/S Harsh Inter National vs. Commissioner, Commerical Tax And Another

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of alternative remedy. The petitioner's counsel did not dispute that a remedy of appeal is available under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017. In view of this admission and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's case, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court directed that the petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority. If an appeal is filed within 10 days from the date of the order, along with a certified copy of the High Court's order, it shall be decided by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law, expeditiously. The ratio decidendi is that where an alternative statutory remedy is available and not disputed by the petitioner, the High Court would ordinarily relegate the party to that remedy, unless there are exceptional circumstances warranting interference under its writ jurisdiction.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Harsh Inter National, filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to release goods and a vehicle detained under Section 129(1) of the State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, without demanding security. The petition also sought to quash an order dated June 16, 2022, passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 129(1), another order dated June 28, 2022, and a GST DRC-07 creating a demand of tax and penalty amounting to Rs. 90,62,400/- on June 28, 2022. The Standing Counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, citing the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the alternative remedy of appeal available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017? The petitioner's counsel did not dispute the existence of the alternative remedy of appeal. The respondent's contention was that the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. The petitioner's argument, though not explicitly detailed beyond not disputing the remedy, implicitly suggests a reliance on the High Court's writ jurisdiction to bypass the appellate process, possibly due to urgency or perceived inadequacy of the appellate remedy. The respondent's argument was straightforward: the statutory appeal mechanism under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, provides an adequate and efficacious remedy, thus precluding the exercise of writ jurisdiction.