M/S Muskan Trading Company, Ambedkarnagar Thru. Proprietor Beena vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax Civil Sectt. Lko. And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Muskan Trading Company, through its Proprietor Beena, filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench. The petition challenged an order passed under Section 73 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The respondent was the State of U.P. and other authorities. The petitioner's counsel, at the outset of the hearing, sought permission to withdraw the writ petition to avail the alternate statutory remedy.

Held

The Court noted the preliminary objection raised by the State that the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, against the order passed under Section 73 of the Act. This contention was not disputed by the petitioner's counsel. Consequently, the petitioner's counsel prayed for permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to pursue the alternate remedy. The Court allowed this prayer. The principle derived is that High Courts may dismiss writ petitions where an equally effective statutory remedy exists and the petitioner concedes this fact and seeks to avail such remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy against the impugned order passed under Section 73 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The respondent State argued that an alternate and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner did not dispute this contention. No argument was recorded for the petitioner on this issue, other than their subsequent prayer to withdraw the petition to avail the said remedy.