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, against the impugned orders. The Court noted that this was not disputed by the petitioner. Consequently, the Court decided to relegate the petitioner to the statutory alternative remedy. The reasoning was based on the established principle that when an efficacious alternative remedy exists, the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, should ordinarily direct the petitioner to avail that remedy. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition by relegating the petitioner to the alternative remedy.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Jay Prakash Thekedar, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 26.07.2022 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, and another, submitted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act. This was not disputed by the petitioner's counsel. It was also not disputed that the petitioner was engaged in business during the period under assessment but failed to file monthly returns.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has an alternative remedy available 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. Contentions: Petitioner: Did not dispute the availability of an alternative remedy. 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.