M/S Vintage Detectitive And Safety PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner Of Appeals Central Goods And Services Tax And 2 Others
Held
The Court held that since the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal available against the impugned orders and has already utilized this remedy by filing an appeal, the High Court should not entertain the writ petition. The proper course of action is for the petitioner to await the decision of their appeal. The Court directed the appellate authority (respondent no. 1) to consider the petitioner's appeal against the impugned orders expeditiously, in accordance with the law. Furthermore, the Court directed that the stay application and the waiver application filed by the petitioner be considered and decided preferably within one month, provided the petitioner participates and cooperates with the proceedings. No specific issue was left undecided.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Vintage Detective and Safety Pvt. Ltd., is challenging orders dated February 1, 2019, passed against them. These orders are currently under appeal before the appellate authority, the Commissioner of Appeals, Central Goods and Services Tax, and two others. The petitioner had filed an application for an interim stay and a waiver of the pre-condition for depositing the disputed duty amount before the appellate authority. The petitioner approached the High Court by way of a writ petition, seeking intervention before the decision of their appeal.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when a statutory remedy of appeal is available and has been availed by the petitioner? (Question of law) The petitioner argued that they had approached the High Court by way of a writ petition. The respondents contended that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal available against the impugned orders and that this remedy has already been utilized by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner should await the decision of the appeal rather than directly approaching the writ court.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 423 of 2019 Petitioner :- M/S Vintage Detectitive And Safety Pvt. Ltd.
Respondent :- Commissioner Of Appeals Central Goods And Services Tax And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhijeet Mukherji,Amitabh Agarwal,Vivek Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent :- Dhananjay Awasthi Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard Sri Abhijeet Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Dhananjay Awasthi has appeared for the respondents.
It appears that certain orders dated 1.2.2019 have been passed against the petitioner and all those orders are under challenge before the appellate authority. The petitioner in appeal has moved application for grant of interim stay and for waiver to waive the pre-condition for deposit of the disputed amount of duty.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as admittedly the petitioner has a statutory remedy available against the impugned order and the said remedy has already been utilized, the petitioner should wait for the decision of the appeal instead of directly approaching the writ Court.
Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition with the direction to the appellate authority respond
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.