Chintan Jain S/O Shri Kamal Jain vs. State Of Rajasthan
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Chintan Jain, proprietor of Chintan Logistics, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court challenging the seizure procedure conducted by the respondents under Section 68(3) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner directly approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without availing the alternative statutory remedy of appeal available under Section 107 of the Act of 2017. The respondents are the State of Rajasthan and its tax authorities, along with private entities.
Held
The Court held that it is a well-settled proposition of law that when an alternative statutory remedy is available to a person, they cannot be allowed to bypass the jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority. The Court found that the petitioner had a clear statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act of 2017 against the impugned seizure procedure. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed on this ground alone. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal within one month from the date of the order. The Appellate Authority was directed to hear and decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within two months, after providing an opportunity of hearing to all parties, and to ignore the period of limitation for filing the appeal.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner, having an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, can bypass the Appellate Authority and directly approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for challenging a seizure procedure under Section 68(3) of the Act of 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner directly approached the High Court by filing the writ petition. Revenue's Contention: The respondents did not explicitly record any arguments in the judgment. However, the Court's decision implies that the availability of an alternative remedy is a bar to writ jurisdiction.
Sections Cited
Section 68(3), Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 21/03/2024
Aggrieved by the impugned seizure procedure conducted by the respondents under Section 68(3) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, “the Act of 2017”), the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner.
(2 of 2) [CW-19421/2023]
Admittedly, the aforesaid order and action of the respondents is appealable under Section 107 of the Act of 2017, but without availing the alternative statutory remedy of filing appeal under Section 107 of the Act of 2017, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has straightway approached this Court by way of filing this petition.
It is well settled proposition of law that whenever alternative statutory remedy is available to a person, he cannot be allowed to by-pass the juri iction of the Appellate Authority.
In view of the above, the instant writ petition stands dismissed on this count alone granting liberty to the petitioner to file statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority. In case, any appeal is submitted within a period of one month from today, the Appellate Authority is expected to hear and decide the same after providing due opportunity of hearing to all the respective parties, preferably within a period of two months from today, strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously as early as possible, ignoring the period of limitation.
Stay application and all application(s) (pending, if any) also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma/79
Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.