Rbl Bank Limited vs. Union Territory Of Chandigarh And Ors
Held
The Court held that 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 Court declined to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage, stating that the Appellate Authority would have a larger scope to examine all contentions, facts, and records and pass an appropriate order. The Court directed that if the petitioner files an appeal within 15 days from the date of the order, the Appellate Authority should decide it expeditiously, preferably within four months. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts should generally direct parties to exhaust statutory remedies before entertaining writ petitions, especially when a robust appellate mechanism is available. The writ petition was dismissed with the liberty to file the appeal.
Facts
The petitioner, RBL 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 Court noted that the petitioner had not yet pursued the appellate mechanism available under the GST Act. The writ petition was filed challenging an unspecified order or action by the revenue authorities. The amount in dispute was not recorded. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner approached the High Court directly without exhausting the statutory appeal process.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner has exhausted the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner's contention was not explicitly recorded in terms of arguments made, but the fact that they filed a writ petition implies an attempt to bypass the statutory appeal. The revenue's contention was not recorded, but the Court's observation that the petitioner has not availed the statutory remedy suggests that the revenue would likely rely on the availability of the appeal mechanism. The Court did not explicitly state the arguments of each side but focused on the petitioner's failure to utilize the available statutory remedy.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
CWP-33367 138
IN TH RBL Bank Li
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-33367-2024(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 urisdiction under Article 226 of
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.