Ms Amtech Engineers vs. The Commissioner Of State Tax

Held

The Court found substance in the submission made by the learned State Counsel. It held that the writ petition was not maintainable because an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act was available. The Court decided that it was for the Appellate Forum to determine whether the appeal filed by the petitioner was within the time limit and, if not, whether the delay should be condoned. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the violation of natural justice or the exclusion of the limitation period. The Court's reasoning was that the Appellate Authority is the appropriate forum to adjudicate these matters, including the condonation of delay. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority.

Facts

The petitioner, a taxable person registered under the Uttarakhand GST Act, filed a writ petition challenging a demand order dated 02.05.2023, passed by Respondent No. 2 under Section 73 of the Act. The petitioner contended that the order was violative of natural justice as it was passed after their GST registration was cancelled in October 2022 and was not physically communicated, preventing them from filing an appeal within the prescribed limitation period. The State counsel argued that the order was appealable under Section 107 of the Act and that the petitioner had previously withdrawn a writ petition challenging the cancellation of their registration. The petitioner further argued that the availability of the appellate remedy was unclear until a Division Bench judgment on 24.06.2024, and sought exclusion of the intervening period from the limitation period.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act is available? (Question of law) 2. Whether the period between 20.06.2022 and 24.06.2024 should be excluded from the limitation period for filing an appeal, given the evolving legal position on the availability of appellate remedies? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the writ petition was maintainable because the principles of natural justice were violated, and the impugned order was not properly communicated, leading to a situation where the statutory appeal remedy under Section 107 was effectively unavailable due to the expiry of the limitation period. They contended that the legal position regarding the availability of the appellate forum was clarified only on 24.06.2024, and therefore, the period up to this date should be excluded from the limitation period for filing an appeal. They relied on the judgment dated 20.06.2022 in SPA No. 123 of 2022 and the subsequent review judgment on 24.06.2024. Revenue's Arguments: The State counsel submitted that the impugned order was appealable under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, and thus the writ petition was not maintainable. They also pointed out that the petitioner had previously withdrawn a writ petition challenging the cancellation of their GST registration. The State counsel further submitted that the petitioner was at liberty to raise the contention regarding the exclusion of the limitation period before the Appellate Forum.