M/S Jay Prakash Thekedar vs. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes And Another
Held
The Court held that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, to challenge the order passed by the Assessing Authority and the subsequent recovery order. This was not disputed by the petitioner. The Court reasoned that since a clear and effective alternative remedy is available under the statute, the writ jurisdiction should not be exercised. The principle applied is that writ petitions are generally not entertained when an equally efficacious alternative remedy exists. Therefore, the Court relegated the petitioner to the statutory remedy of appeal. No specific amount in dispute was recorded. The Court did not decide the merits of the case or the validity of the orders passed by the Assessing Authority.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Jay Prakash Thekedar, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 03.08.2022 passed by the Assessing Authority 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 has an alternative statutory 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 had failed to file monthly returns. The High Court noted 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? 2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the availability of a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that the writ petition was the appropriate recourse. The revenue contended that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable. The petitioner did not dispute the availability of this alternative remedy.
Sections Cited
Section 74(9), Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1516 of 2022 Petitioner :- M/S Jay Prakash Thekedar Respondent :- Commissioner, Commercial Taxes And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pooja Talwar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
The instant petition is directed against 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 the recovery order dated 07.09.2022 issued in pursuance thereof.
Learned counsel for the revenue Sri Ankur Agarwal, submits that the petitioner has alternative remedy of challenging the impugned orders in appeal under Section 107 of the Act, which is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is also not disputed that during the period under assessment the petitioner was doing business but had failed to file monthly returns.
As remedy of appeal is available under statute itself, therefore, we relegate the petitioner to the alternative remedy available under the Act.
The petition stands disposed of, accordingly. (Jayant Banerji,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.)
Order Date :- 22.12.2022 S.Chaurasia SH
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.