Ms Mahindra Last Mile Mobility Limited vs. The Commissioner
Held
The Court held that since the order impugned in the writ petition is appealable under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, it is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The Court found that the existence of an alternate statutory remedy, specifically the appeal provided under Section 107, is a ground to dismiss a writ petition. The reasoning is based on the principle that High Courts generally refrain from exercising their writ jurisdiction when an effective and adequate alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved party. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy. The Court also expressed hope that if an appeal is filed within the period of limitation, it shall 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 this by referring to a public notice from the Joint Commissioner (Appeal) indicating that appeals are heard chronologically and no urgency applications are entertained, rendering the appellate remedy inefficacious. The petitioner also argued that the question of law involved has already been decided by a Division Bench of the High Court.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternate remedy of appeal is available under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act? The petitioner argued that the appellate remedy is not efficacious due to delays indicated by a public notice from the Joint Commissioner (Appeal), which states appeals are heard chronologically and no urgency applications are entertained. The petitioner further contended that the question of law involved has already been decided by a Division Bench of this Court. The State Counsel disputed the petitioner's submissions regarding the efficacy of the appellate remedy and argued for the maintainability of the appeal.
Sections Cited
Section 129, Section 129(3), Section 107, Section 107(13)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
order passed by State Tax Officer (respondent no. 2) under Section 129(3) of Uttarakhand GST Act and also the show cause notice issued under Section 129 of the said Act. (3)
Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary objection that the order impugned is appealable under Section 107 of Uttarakhand GST Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, refers to a public notice, issued by Joint Commissioner (Appeal), State Tax Department on 2.7.2024, which indicates that appeals shall be heard in chronological order and no urgency application shall be entertained for hearing any appeal out of turn. Thus he submits that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious for the petitioner. He further submits that the question of law involved in the matter is already decided b
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.