M/S K J Enterprises vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s K J Enterprises, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad challenging an order dated July 6, 2021, passed by respondent no. 3 under Section 74 of the UPGST Act. The State-respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition due to the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act. The petitioner's counsel stated that the petitioner intended to file an appeal before the appellate authority within three weeks. The Standing Counsel for the State had no objection to this proposal.

Held

The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's case. Instead, it accepted the petitioner's submission that they would file an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017, within three weeks. The revenue had no objection to this course of action. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. The operative direction was that if the petitioner files such an appeal within three weeks, along with a copy of the High Court's order, the appellate authority shall consider and decide it in accordance with the law, without raising any objection as to limitation. The issue of the merits of the order dated July 6, 2021, was expressly left undecided by the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court, given the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017, as contended by the revenue? The petitioner argued for the maintainability of the writ petition, implicitly suggesting that the alternative remedy might not be efficacious or that exceptional circumstances warranted writ jurisdiction. The revenue (State-respondents) contended that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the statutory alternative remedy of appeal provided under Section 107 of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017, which should be exhausted first.