M/S. Auto Profiles Limited, Through Its Authorized Signatory, Namely, Prabir Kumar Dey vs. Union Of INDIA, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Govt. Of INDIA

Held

The High Court held that it saw no reason to entertain the present writ petition as the petitioner now has an alternate and efficacious remedy of appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal. The Court noted that the Tribunal was accepting filings of appeals, indicating it would be functional shortly. Therefore, the Court disposed of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy. If the petitioner institutes an appeal within four weeks from the date of the order, the period spent in prosecuting the writ petition would be excluded for determining the limitation period. All contentions of all parties on merits were explicitly left open for the Tribunal to determine in the first instance. No costs were awarded.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Auto Profiles Limited, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court challenging an order. The petitioner averred in paragraph 29 of their petition that the writ petition was instituted because the GST Appellate Tribunal was not functional in Jharkhand. The respondents are various authorities under the Union of India and CGST & Central Excise. The High Court noted that the order challenged was appealable. It was also noted that the GST Appellate Tribunal was accepting filings of appeals in contemplation of it becoming functional shortly. The Court observed that in similar circumstances, other petitioners had withdrawn their petitions to pursue the remedy of appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal is available before the GST Appellate Tribunal, particularly when the Tribunal is in the process of becoming functional. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the writ petition was filed due to the non-functionality of the GST Appellate Tribunal in Jharkhand. They relied on the averments made in their petition regarding this procedural impediment. Revenue/State's contention: The respondents did not explicitly record any argument against entertaining the writ petition. However, their presence and the Court's subsequent order imply an expectation that the petitioner should avail the appellate remedy. The Court's observation that the order is appealable suggests the respondents would likely contend for the exhaustion of alternative remedies.