M/S Reliable Associates Through Its Proprietor Sri Ashok Kumar Modak vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax And Central Excise

Held

The Court declined to entertain the writ petition. The primary reason for this decision was the availability of an alternative appellate remedy before the GST Tribunal. The Court noted that the GST Tribunal has been constituted, and although not fully operational, it is accepting filings and is expected to function shortly. The Court also considered that the questions of fact involved might require an examination of books of account, which is a function better suited for the Tribunal. Therefore, the petitioner was granted liberty to avail of the alternate remedy before the Tribunal. The Court directed that if the appeal is instituted within six weeks from the date of the order, the Tribunal should consider it on its merits and in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by the issue of limitation, given the petitioner's justifiable pursuit of the writ petition. All contentions of the parties on merits were explicitly left open for the Tribunal to decide.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Reliable Associates, through its proprietor Sri Ashok Kumar Modak, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court. The petition challenged an order passed by the respondents, who are various authorities under the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) regime, including the Principal Commissioner, Commissioner (Appeals), Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, and Superintendent. The specific order or action under challenge and the tax period(s) are not detailed in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that the petition was filed because, at the time of institution, the GST Tribunal was not constituted. The Court was informed that the GST Tribunal has since been constituted, although it is not yet fully operational, with filings being accepted and expected to start functioning shortly.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when an alternative appellate remedy before the GST Tribunal is available or becoming available? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner had filed the writ petition because the GST Tribunal was not constituted at the time of filing, which was a justifiable reason for approaching the High Court. Respondents' Argument: The respondents did not explicitly record any arguments in the judgment. However, the Court's decision to decline entertainment of the petition implies an expectation that the petitioner should pursue the available alternative remedy.