M/S Shreehari Realtech PVT. LTD. Lko. Thru. Its Authorised Signaotory Mr. Kripa Shankar vs. Union Of INDIA Thru. Secy. Govt. INDIA Finance Ministry, Deptt. Of Revenue , New Delhi And Another

Held

The Court held that while the High Court has discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution, it would ordinarily not entertain a writ petition if an effective alternative statutory remedy is available. The Court noted that the petitioner did not dispute the existence of the right to appeal under Section 107 of the U.P. GST Act. Citing Supreme Court decisions in Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. vs. State of Bihar and PHR Invent Educational Society vs. UCO Bank, the Court reiterated that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedies is a rule of discretion and policy, and generally, writ petitions should not be entertained when a detailed statutory mechanism for redressal exists. The Court found no compelling reason to deviate from this principle in the present case. Therefore, the Court dismissed the writ petition on the sole ground of the availability of the statutory remedy, leaving it open for the petitioner to file an appeal within three weeks. The Court clarified that it had not examined the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shreehari Realtech Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court challenging certain orders. The respondents, Union of India and another, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, citing the availability of a statutory remedy under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were patently illegal, violated principles of natural justice, were not digitally signed, lacked a preliminary notice, and were not properly communicated as they were uploaded on a new portal unknown to the petitioner. The petitioner contended that due to these violations, the writ petition was maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, given the alleged patent illegality and violation of principles of natural justice in the impugned orders? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the writ petition is maintainable because the impugned orders are patently illegal and violate the principles of natural justice. Specific grounds raised include the absence of digital signatures on the orders, failure to issue a preliminary/consultative notice, and improper communication of the orders via a new portal without proper notification. The petitioner contended that these procedural lapses render the orders invalid and justify the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Respondent's Arguments: The respondents argued that the petition is not maintainable due to the availability of an effective statutory remedy under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which allows an aggrieved person to file an appeal.