Anjila Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA Through Ministry Of Finance (Revenue Department) And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that a statutory alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 30 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for filing an application for revocation of the cancellation of registration. Given this, the Court decided not to entertain the writ petition directly. The reasoning is that statutory remedies are designed to address such grievances efficiently. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts should generally relegate parties to their statutory remedies when such remedies are available and adequate. The operative direction is that the writ petition is dismissed, but the petitioner is granted liberty to apply for the revocation of her registration certificate to the concerned authority, which shall be considered expeditiously. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Anjila Gupta, filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging an order dated 19.11.2019, passed by respondent No. 2, which cancelled the GST registration of her firm. The respondent is the Union of India through the Ministry of Finance (Revenue Department) and two others. The petitioner sought to quash this cancellation order. The Court noted that a statutory alternative remedy was available to the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition directly when an alternative statutory remedy is available to the petitioner under the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought to quash the order cancelling her firm's GST registration. No specific argument regarding the alternative remedy was recorded in the judgment. Respondent's contention: The respondent, represented by counsel for the Central Excise Department, did not explicitly argue on the availability of the alternative remedy, but the Court's decision implies reliance on this principle.