M/S Jay Prakash Thekedar vs. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes And Another

Held

The Court held that an alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner did not dispute this fact. The Court reasoned that since a statutory remedy of appeal exists and is not disputed, the petitioner should be relegated to that remedy. The Court did not delve into the merits of the assessment order or the recovery order. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition by relegating the petitioner to the alternative remedy. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Jay Prakash Thekedar, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 03.08.2022 passed by the Assessing Authority (respondent no.2) under Section 74(9) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and a subsequent recovery order dated 07.09.2022. The revenue, represented by the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, submitted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act. It was also not disputed that the petitioner was engaged in business during the period under assessment but had failed to file monthly returns. The High Court considered the availability of the statutory appeal remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy against the impugned orders passed by the Assessing Authority under Section 74(9) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the subsequent recovery order. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner did not dispute the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal. Revenue's contention: The revenue argued that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of challenging the impugned orders in appeal under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The revenue relied on the statutory provision for appeal.