M/S Pankaj Enterprises Through Its Proprietor Pankaj Kumar Singh vs. Union Of INDIA
Held
The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The reasoning was that the impugned order was revisionable, meaning a statutory remedy of revision was available to the petitioner before the appropriate authority. The Court declined to entertain the writ application on this basis. The ratio decidendi is that when a specific statutory remedy, such as revision, is available and effective, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is generally not the appropriate recourse. The operative direction was to grant liberty to the petitioner to pursue the remedy of revision before the appropriate authority. No issues were expressly left undecided.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Pankaj Enterprises, through its proprietor Pankaj Kumar Singh, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court. The respondents are various authorities of the Union of India and the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) department, including the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Ranchi. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history leading to the writ petition is not detailed, other than the existence of an 'impugned order'.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable against the impugned order, considering it is revisionable? The petitioner, M/s Pankaj Enterprises, likely contended that the writ petition was the appropriate remedy, possibly due to alleged procedural irregularities or a lack of alternative effective remedy. The respondents, represented by the Union of India and CGST authorities, would have argued that the impugned order is revisionable, and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable as a statutory remedy exists. The judgment does not explicitly detail the arguments made by each side, but the Court's observation indicates the core of the dispute revolved around the maintainability of the writ petition versus the availability of a revisionary remedy.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (T) No. 3001 of 2024 M/s Pankaj Enterprises, a proprietorship concern through its proprietor Pankaj Kumar Singh, Ranchi
... ... ... ... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India
The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs through its Chairman, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi
The Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Ranchi
The Assistant Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, South Division, Ranchi
The Superintendent, CGST & C. Ex, Range-III, South Division, Ranchi
… … ... Respondents
--------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
--------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Zaid Imam, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI
Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
--------- Order No. 02 /Dated: 09.07.2024
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The impugned order is revisionable one. Th
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Jharkhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.