M/S Maa Vindhyavasini PVT. LTD. Through Its Authorised Signatory Mr. Mayank Dubey vs. State Of U.P. Through Secretary, Institutional Finance, U.P. Govt.,Lucknow And 3 Others

Held

The Court held that the writ petitioner ought not to have approached the writ Court when a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was already pending before the appellate authority. The reasoning was based on the principle that when an alternative statutory remedy is available and is being pursued, the writ jurisdiction should not be invoked. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition is not maintainable if an effective statutory appeal is pending. The Court dismissed the writ petition on this ground.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Maa Vindhyavasini Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court. The petitioner had previously filed a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, before the Additional Commissioner, Grade-2, Appeal-2, Commercial Tax / SGST, Kanpur. This appeal was pending before the appellate authority, who is the fourth respondent in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed while the statutory appeal was still under consideration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petitioner ought to have approached the writ Court when a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was already pending before the appellate authority? The petitioner's contention was not recorded in the judgment. The respondent's contention was that since a statutory appeal had been preferred by the writ petitioner, the petitioner ought not to have approached the writ Court. No specific provisions, circulars, or precedents were mentioned in the judgment regarding the arguments made by either party.