M/S Sagar Mobile Having Place Of Business At No. 73 vs. Assistant Commissioner, Central GST
Facts
The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking to quash an Order-in-Original dated 03.02.2025, two FORM DRC-07 notices dated 04.02.2025, and a Show Cause Notice along with FORM GST DRC-01 both dated 25.04.2023, all issued by Respondent No. 1. The petitioner also sought a direction to restrain the respondents from taking any coercive steps concerning these impugned orders and notices. The respondents, represented by the Central GST counsel, pointed out that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy available under Section 107 of the Central GST Act, 2017, for filing an appeal.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner has an available statutory remedy under Section 107 of the Central GST Act, 2017, for filing an appeal against the impugned orders and notices. Consequently, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition on merits due to the availability of this alternative remedy. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts should generally relegate parties to statutory remedies when they are available and efficacious, rather than exercising extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The Court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the appropriate authority under Section 107 of the Central GST Act, 2017. The petitioner was also granted the benefit of the time spent pursuing the remedy before the High Court for the purpose of calculating the limitation period for filing the appeal.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy available against the impugned orders and notices under the Central GST Act, 2017? The petitioner sought to quash specific orders and notices issued by the revenue authorities, implying a challenge to the merits of the GST demand and proceedings. The petitioner's primary objective was to obtain relief from the High Court by way of certiorari and mandamus, seeking to nullify the adverse actions taken by the revenue. The revenue, on the other hand, contended that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the existence of a statutory appeal mechanism provided under Section 107 of the Central GST Act, 2017, which the petitioner ought to have availed.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2025:UHC:4281-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/283/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Mr. Rohit Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the respondents.
By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Order-in-original bearing 25/AC/RDR/SAGAR/24-25 dated 03.02.2025 (Annexure-2); (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FORM DRC-07 bearing reference no. ZD0502250032046 dated 04.02.2025 (Annexure-3); (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FORM DRC-07 bearing reference no. ZD0502250032038 dated 04.02.2025 (Annexure-4); (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Show Cause Notice bearing SCN No. 03/AC/CGST/AUDIT/CIR-RDR/2023-24 and FORM GST DRC-01 both dated 25.04.2023 issued by the Respondent No. 1 (Annexure-5)
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.