Mahindra Last Mile Mobility Limited vs. The Commissioner

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of an alternate remedy. The Court found that the order impugned in the writ petition is appealable under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The reasoning was based on the established principle that writ jurisdiction is an extraordinary remedy and should not be exercised when an equally efficacious alternate remedy is available. The Court dismissed the writ petition on this ground. The operative direction was to grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum (i.e., the appellate authority). The Court also expressed hope that the appeal, if filed within the period of limitation, would be heard and decided within the time limit specified in Section 107(13) of the Uttarakhand GST Act.

Facts

The petitioner is challenging an order passed by the State Tax Officer under Section 129(3) of the Uttarakhand GST Act, along with the show cause notice issued under Section 129 of the same Act. The State Counsel raised a preliminary objection, stating that the impugned order is appealable under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act. The petitioner's counsel countered by referring to a public notice from the Joint Commissioner (Appeal) indicating that appeals are heard chronologically, suggesting the appellate remedy is not efficacious. The petitioner also contended that the question of law involved has already been decided by a Division Bench of the High Court. The State Counsel disputed these submissions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the existence of an alternate remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the alternate remedy of appeal is not efficacious due to a public notice from the Joint Commissioner (Appeal) stating that appeals are heard chronologically and no urgency applications are entertained. The petitioner also submitted that the question of law involved has already been decided by a Division Bench of this Court, implying the matter could be decided directly by the High Court. Revenue's arguments: The State Counsel raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, asserting that the impugned order is appealable under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act. The State Counsel disputed the petitioner's submissions regarding the efficacy of the appellate remedy.