Ms New Shri Prasadi Lal Metal Store vs. State Of Uttarakhand
Held
The Court held that since the petitioners have an alternate statutory remedy available to them under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, the writ petition is not maintainable before this Court. The Court reasoned that the existence of a specific statutory appeal mechanism precludes the High Court from entertaining a writ petition on the same grounds, unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts should not entertain writ petitions when an effective and efficacious alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved party. The Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of alternate remedy, granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum.
Facts
The petitioners have challenged an order dated 22.03.2026, passed under Section 130 of the GST Act. The specific authority that passed this order is not explicitly stated in the judgment. The amount in dispute is also not mentioned. The procedural history is limited to the filing of the writ petition before the High Court. The State, represented by Ms. Pooja Banga, submitted that the petitioners have a statutory right of appeal available under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court, given the existence of an alternate statutory remedy under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act. Petitioner's contention: The judgment does not record any specific argument from the petitioners regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. They did not dispute the State's contention about the availability of an alternate remedy. Revenue/State's contention: The State argued that the petitioners have a statutory appeal available under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, implying that this should be the preferred recourse.
Sections Cited
Section 130, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2026:UHC:2854-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
WPMB/252/2026 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J. Ms. Tanuj Talwar Shah, Advocate for the petitioners through video conferencing. Ms. Pooja Banga, Brief Holder for the State through video conferencing.
Petitioners have challenged order dated 22.03.2026, passed under Section 130 of GST Act.
Ms. Pooja Banga, learned counsel appearing for respondents, submits that petitioners have right of statutory appeal available under Section 107 of Uttarakhand GST Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioners do not disputes the said contention. Since petitioners have alternate remedy available to them, therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy, with liberty to petitioners to approach the appropriate forum.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 20.04.2026
Mahinder/
2026:UHC:2854-DB
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 Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.