M/S Maa Annapurna Transport Agency PVT. LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA Thru Secy. And 3 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Maa Annapurna Transport Agency Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition seeking to quash seizure orders dated November 28, 2017, and December 7, 2017, passed by respondent no. 4. The petitioner also sought an order of prohibition against any order being passed under Section 129(3) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017. The court noted that a penalty order had also been passed. The case was heard by the Hon'ble Bharati Sapru and Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, JJ. The petitioner was represented by Shri Aloke Kumar, and the respondents by Shri C.B. Tripathi.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner has an equally efficacious remedy of filing an appeal against the penalty order under Section 107 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017. The reasoning was that since a penalty order had already been passed, the statutory mechanism for challenging such orders was available and appropriate. The Court stated that it was not inclined to entertain the writ petition at this stage, implying that the petitioner should exhaust the available statutory remedies before approaching the High Court through a writ petition. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts should generally refrain from entertaining writ petitions when an equally effective alternative remedy, such as a statutory appeal, is available to the aggrieved party. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner has an equally efficacious remedy available under the law, considering that a penalty order has been passed. The petitioner's contention was not explicitly recorded in terms of arguments presented. However, by filing the writ petition, the petitioner implicitly argued that the seizure orders and the potential order under Section 129(3) were illegal or arbitrary, necessitating intervention by the High Court. The respondent's contention, as reflected in the court's decision, was that the petitioner possessed an equally efficacious statutory remedy of appeal against the penalty order under Section 107 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017, making the writ petition premature or inappropriate at this stage.
Sections Cited
Section 129(3), Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 849 of 2017 Petitioner :- M/S Maa Annapurna Transport Agency Pvt. Ltd. Respondent :- Union Of India Thru' Secy. & 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aloke Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,R.C.Panday Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
We have heard Shri Aloke Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri C.B. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. The petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari to quash the seizure orders dated 28.11.2017 and 07.12.2017 (annexure nos.3 and 6 to the petition) passed by the respondent no.4 and also seeks an order of Prohibition against the order being passed by the authority under Section 129(3) of the U.P. GST. The record reflects that the penalty order has also been passed. In these circumstances, the petitioner has equally efficacious remedy of filing an appeal against the penalty order under Section 107 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017. It is left open to the petitioner to take recourse to the statutory remedy available to him under the law. We are not inclined to entertain this petition at this stage. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 12.1.2018 pks
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.