Namo Solution vs. Union Of INDIA
Held
The Court held that in the given facts and circumstances, a statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the Court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned order through a writ petition. The reasoning was based on the existence of an alternative efficacious remedy provided by the statute. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts generally refrain from exercising their writ jurisdiction when a statutory appeal mechanism is available, unless there are exceptional circumstances such as lack of jurisdiction or violation of principles of natural justice that cannot be adequately addressed in appeal. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition, but with liberty granted to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy available under the law, which implicitly refers to the statutory appeal.
Facts
The petitioner, Namo Solution, filed a writ petition challenging the order cancelling its GST registration. A show cause notice was issued on May 19, 2023, alleging that invoices were issued without the supply of goods or services, in violation of Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017, and Rules 21(b) and 21(e) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner requested time to file a reply on the same day. However, no reply was filed, and the order cancelling the registration was passed on May 30, 2023. The respondents argued that a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, was available to the petitioner.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when a statutory remedy of appeal is available under Section 30 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for challenging the order of cancellation of registration. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the order of cancellation was passed without proper consideration of its reply, implying a procedural deficiency that might warrant intervention by the High Court. Respondent's contention: The respondents, specifically Respondent No. 3, contended that a statutory appeal under Section 30 of the Act of 2017 is available to the petitioner, and therefore, the writ petition should not be entertained.
Sections Cited
Section 16, Section 30, Rule 21(b), Rule 21(e)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
[2023:RJ-JP:13447-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9908/2023 Namo Solution, situated at 1343, Ajab Ghar Ka Rasta, Kishanpole Bazaar, Jaipur 302001 thorugh its Partner/ Authorized Representative Nimish Bilala. ----Petitioner Versus
Union of India, through Finance Secretary, Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi 110002
State of Rajasthan, through Finance Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
The Assistant Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax Department, Central Goods and Service Tax Department, Wardi, Circle A, Zone Jaipur-I, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Choudhary Advocate with Mr. Anant Priya Jain Advocate and Mr. Hemant Choudhary Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 For Respondent No. 3 : : Ms. Jaya P. Pathak Advocate on behalf Mr. Sandeep Pathak Advocate. Mr. Ajay Shukla Advocate with Mr. Raghav Sharma Advocate. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 06/07/2023
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against order of cancellation of p
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 Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.