M/S Jai Ambey Bharat Gas vs. The State Of Hp And Others
Held
The Court held that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy against the demand order dated 02.08.2024. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue the appropriate statutory remedy as per law. Additionally, the petitioner was granted liberty to move an application for a decision concerning the blocked input tax credit (ITC). The concerned authority was directed to render a decision on this application in the first instance. If the application were moved within 10 days, it was to be decided at the earliest, but no later than 10 days from its receipt. The ratio decidendi is that writ petitions are generally not entertained when an efficacious alternative statutory remedy exists, and parties should be permitted to pursue such remedies while also seeking prompt resolution of ancillary issues like blocked ITC.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Jai Ambey Bharat Gas, filed a writ petition challenging a demand order dated 02.08.2024 issued by respondent no. 3. The petitioner is the second purchaser of goods from Bharat Petroleum and contends that their input tax credit (ITC) on these purchases has been wrongly blocked. The petitioner's counsel acknowledged that a statutory appeal would lie against the demand order and stated an intention to pursue this remedy under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Reliance was placed on Rule 86-A of the Central Goods and Services Rules, 2017, in support of the plea regarding blocked ITC.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy against the demand order dated 02.08.2024, and if so, should the writ petition be entertained? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner acknowledged the existence of a statutory appeal. They intended to pursue this remedy and also sought a decision on the blocked input tax credit (ITC), relying on Rule 86-A of the Central Goods and Services Rules, 2017. Respondents' Argument: The respondents were represented, but their specific arguments are not recorded in the judgment. However, the court's decision implies that the existence of a statutory remedy was not disputed by the petitioner.
Sections Cited
Rule 86-A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
( 2024:HHC:9566-DB )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
CWP No. 11232 of 2024. Date of Decision :
3 rd October, 2024. M/s Jai Ambey Bharat Gas …...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors.
....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Shakdher, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Sakshi Gautam, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sushant Kaprate, Additional Advocate General.
Rajiv Shakdher,
Chief Justice (Oral)
This writ petition is directed against the order of demand dated 02.08.2024 issued by respondent no.3. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that an appeal would lie against the aforementioned order of demand.
Learned counsel for the petitioner says that he will take recourse to the statutory remedy provided under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 201
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 Himachal Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.