Hdfc Bank Limited Formerly Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited vs. Union Territory Of Chandigarh And Ors
Held
The Court held that the petitioner had not availed the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Consequently, the Court decided not to invoke its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage. The Court reasoned that the Appellate Authority would have a larger scope to examine all facts and records and pass an appropriate order. The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal within 15 days from the date of the order. The Court expected the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within four months. The writ petition was dismissed with the liberty granted to the petitioner.
Facts
The petitioner, HDFC Bank Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The petitioner had not availed the statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The respondents were the Union Territory of Chandigarh and others. The Court noted that the petitioner had not pursued the available statutory appeal mechanism. The writ petition was filed seeking intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without first availing the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, by filing the writ petition, sought to have their contentions examined by the High Court, implying a desire for direct adjudication rather than pursuing the statutory appeal. They likely argued for the High Court's inherent power to entertain the matter directly, possibly due to urgency or other compelling reasons not explicitly detailed. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue or state. However, the Court's observation implies that the statutory remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, was the appropriate recourse.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
CWP-33366 137
IN TH HDFC Bank L
Union Territo CORAM: H
H
Present: M
M
M
f
SANJEEV P
A of filing an ap Act, 2017. W the Constituti all his conten scope to exam appeal is pref appeal be dec
W is dismissed w
of 2024(O&M) **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN ****
Mr. Amrinder Singh, Advocate Ms. Shreya Khunteta, Advocate Ms. Samiksha Uniyal, Advocate for the petitioner. *** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Admittedly, the petitioner has n ppeal under Section 107 of the C We do not intend to invoke our ju on of India at this stage and the ntions in appeal as the Appellat mine all the facts, record and to p ferred within a period of 15 days ided expeditiously preferably wi With the aforementioned observ with the liberty aforesaid.
1 AB AND HARYANA AT RH CWP-33366-2024(O&M) Date of Decision: 11.12.2024 . . . . Petitioner . . . Respondents NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH
) not availed the statutory remedy Central Goods and Services Tax
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 Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.