Goyal Traders Through Proprietor vs. Commissioner Uttarakhand State Goods And Services Tax

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable in the present circumstances because an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the Act of 2017. The Court noted that the writ petition was entertained initially only because the appellate forum was unavailable due to a pending Special Appeal. However, with the Special Appeal having been decided, the avenues for appeal are now open. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner has indeed filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition with directions to the Appellate Authority to decide the petitioner's appeal within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. The petitioner was also directed to deposit 10% of the disputed amount before the Appellate Authority, as stipulated under Section 107(6)(b) of the Act of 2017, before the appeal is decided.

Facts

The petitioner, Goyal Traders, a proprietorship firm dealing in tobacco supply and registered under the Uttarakhand G.S.T. Act, 2017, challenged an adjudication order dated 07.06.2022. This order was passed by the respondent-Department following an audit for the Assessment Year 2017-18, which found discrepancies, specifically the alleged wrongful availment of input tax credit by the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by this order and has approached the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available under the Act of 2017? The petitioner's primary contention is not explicitly recorded in terms of arguments presented. However, the petition was entertained because the appellate forum was unavailable due to a pending Special Appeal (SPA No.123 of 2022, Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand). The petitioner's counsel did not dispute the fact that the appellate avenues are now open. The respondent-State argued that the impugned order, passed under Section 74 of the Act of 2017, is appealable under Section 107 of the Act of 2017. They further contended that the writ petition was entertained solely due to the non-availability of the appellate forum, which has since been resolved. The State also noted that the petitioner has already filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority.