Jagdish Yadav S/O Shri Banwari Lal vs. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax

Facts

The petitioner, Jagdish Yadav, challenged an order passed under Section 129(1) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and a subsequent appellate tribunal order dated November 27, 2019, which dismissed his appeal. The petitioner had deposited the demanded amount. The High Court noted that the case involved disputed questions of law requiring evidence, for which an appeal to the GST tribunal was the appropriate remedy. However, the GST tribunal had not yet been constituted at the time of the petition.

Held

The High Court held that the writ petition was not the appropriate forum for adjudication given the availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal to the GST tribunal. Although the tribunal was not functional at the time, the court recognized this as the intended path for resolving disputed questions of law that require evidence. The court reasoned that relegating the petitioner to the appellate remedy, once the tribunal is constituted, would be the proper course of action. The court directed that if the petitioner files an appeal within three months of the tribunal's constitution, it shall be considered within the period of limitation. No specific finding was made on the merits of the order under challenge.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal to the GST tribunal is available, but the tribunal is not yet constituted? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the demand created had already been deposited. The absence of a functional GST tribunal rendered the statutory remedy unavailable, justifying the invocation of the High Court's writ jurisdiction. Respondent's Contention: The respondent, Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. However, the court's decision implies an expectation that the petitioner should pursue the appellate remedy once available.