M/S Ganpati Medical Store Lko. Thru. Its Partner Ayush Varman vs. Commissioner Of State Tax, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar , Lucknow And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Ganpati Medical Store Lko., through its partner Ayush Varman, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondent (Commissioner of State Tax) to cancel its old GST registration and transfer the Input Tax Credit (ITC) to its new GST registration. The petitioner contended that a system error occurred during migration from the old to the new GST number, preventing proper transfer. The respondent raised a preliminary objection, stating that the petitioner has an alternative remedy before the appellate authority. A notice under Section 61 read with Rule 99 of the GST Act was issued on 20.10.2021, to which the petitioner replied on 20.11.2021, explaining the migration issue. The assessment authority, in its order dated 22.12.2023 under Section 73(9) of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, rejected the petitioner's submissions.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, before the appellate authority. The Court reasoned that the appellate authority is empowered to look into the matter and decide it in accordance with the law. While the petitioner's primary prayer was for a mandamus, the Court found that the issues raised, including the rejection of submissions by the assessment authority regarding the system error during GST migration and the subsequent order under Section 73(9), can be effectively addressed through the statutory appellate mechanism. Therefore, the Court did not entertain the writ petition directly but granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue the appellate route. The Court did not decide on the merits of the ITC transfer or the system error itself, as it was deferring to the appellate authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether this Court has the jurisdiction to issue a mandamus directing the cancellation of an old GST registration and the transfer of ITC to a new registration, considering the availability of an alternative remedy, as per Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that a mandamus is the appropriate remedy available only from this Court for the relief sought, implying that the alternative remedy might not be sufficient or applicable for the specific relief of transferring ITC due to a system error during migration. Respondent's contention: The respondent contended that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, before the appellate authority. They argued that the appellate authority can examine the petitioner's submissions regarding the system error and decide the matter in accordance with the law.