M/S P.K. Enterprises, Lucknow Thru. Proprietor Namely, Pankaj Kumar Mishra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s P.K. Enterprises, through its proprietor Pankaj Kumar Mishra, filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench. The petition sought to quash an order dated 28.12.2023 passed by the second respondent. The petitioner was represented by Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava and Sri Jagadamba Prasad, while the State-respondent was represented by Sri Rajesh Tiwari. The primary prayer was for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order. The Standing Counsel for the State argued that the petitioner should have availed the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, within the prescribed period of three months from the date of communication of the order.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The reasoning was based on the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court noted that the petitioner did not dispute the existence of this appeal provision. Therefore, the appropriate course of action for the petitioner was to approach the appellate authority within the stipulated time frame. The Court did not delve into the merits of the impugned order itself, as the primary issue was the maintainability of the writ petition. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition will not be entertained when an equally efficacious statutory remedy is available and has not been exhausted by the petitioner. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is available to the petitioner? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner did not dispute the existence of the appeal provision under Section 107 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017. Their argument implicitly suggests that the writ petition was the appropriate course of action, though specific grounds for bypassing the appeal were not detailed in the provided text. Respondent's contention: The State-respondent argued that the petitioner, being aggrieved by an order passed under the GST Act, must approach the appellate authority within the prescribed period of three months from the date the order was communicated, as provided under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. They relied on Section 107 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017.