Escorts Kutoba Limited vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Escorts Kubota Limited, filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging an order or action by the revenue authorities. The specific tax period(s) and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy available under Section 112 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which they had not availed. The petitioner's counsel indicated an intention to pursue this statutory remedy.

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 a statutory appeal mechanism ordinarily precludes the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The ratio decidendi is that writ petitions should generally be dismissed when an effective alternative remedy is available and has not been pursued. 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. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of this direction.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when an alternative statutory remedy under Section 112 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is available and has not been availed by the petitioner? The petitioner, represented by Ms. Priyanka Singla, did not explicitly argue for the entertainment of the writ petition on merits. Instead, the counsel indicated an intention to avail the statutory remedy. The respondents-revenue, represented by Mr. Sourabh Goel, Senior Standing Counsel, along with Ms. Himanshi Gautam and Ms. Drishti Saraf, implicitly argued that the writ petition should not be entertained due to the existence of the alternative remedy.