Escorts Kubota Limited vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Escorts Kubota Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The respondents were the Union of India and others. The specific tax period and the order or action under challenge, as well as the authority that passed it, are not detailed in the provided text. The amount in dispute is also not mentioned. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner had not availed the alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 112 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Held

The Court held that it was not inclined to entertain the present writ petition because the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 112 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which had admittedly not been availed. The Court reasoned that the existence of an effective alternative remedy is a ground for declining to exercise writ jurisdiction. The ratio decidendi is that writ petitions should generally not be entertained when statutory remedies are available and have not been exhausted. The Court directed that if the petitioner files an appeal within four weeks from the date of the order, it shall be entertained without any objection being raised on the ground of limitation. No other issues were expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is available and has not been availed by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that they intended to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the Act of 2017. The revenue's contention regarding the availability and non-availing of the alternative remedy was implicitly accepted by the Court in its decision to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to entertain the appeal.