Bansal Concast vs. State Of Punjab And Anr

Held

The Court held that while the existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, in this case, the Appellate Authority could grant the relief sought by the petitioner. Therefore, the Court found no reason to entertain the writ petition. The reasoning was that the statutory appellate mechanism was capable of addressing the petitioner's grievance, including any jurisdictional objections. The Court dismissed the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority was directed to decide any such appeal within two months of its institution. The Court also expressed its expectation that misleading averments would not be repeated.

Facts

The petitioner, Bansal Concast, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated January 19, 2021, passed by the respondent (State of Punjab and another). This order resulted in the blocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 50,00,590/- from the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger. The petitioner contended that no alternative remedy, such as appeal, review, or revision, was available, making a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India maintainable due to a question of jurisdiction. The tax period for the blocked ITC is not specified in the judgment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before the High Court, given the existence of an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, despite the petitioner's claim of a jurisdictional issue? Petitioner's contention: The writ petition is maintainable because there is a question of the officer's jurisdiction, and no alternative remedy is available. Respondents' contention: Not recorded in the judgment. The Court itself raised the question about the availability of the appellate remedy.