Ms Indus Enterprises vs. Commissioner State Goods And Service Tax Commissionerate

Held

The Court held that it was not inclined to entertain the writ petition because the petitioner has an alternate statutory remedy of appeal. The Court noted that the State Counsel correctly pointed out that the impugned order in Form DRC-07, passed under Section 130 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, is appealable under Section 107 of the same Act. The petitioner's counsel did not dispute this fact. While the petitioner sought to address the delay in filing the appeal by referencing a previous judgment, the Court's primary consideration was the availability of the statutory appellate mechanism. The Court reasoned that in the presence of an effective alternative remedy, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is generally not maintainable. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts should not ordinarily entertain writ petitions when an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, even if there are grounds for condoning delay in pursuing that remedy.

Facts

The petitioner challenged an order in Form DRC-07, passed by the Proper Officer under Section 130 of the Uttarakhand GST Act. The State Counsel pointed out that this order is appealable under Section 107 of the same Act. The petitioner's counsel did not dispute this but argued that a two-year delay in filing the appeal, caused by the non-availability of the appellate forum due to a previous judgment (Special Appeal No. 123 of 2022), should be condoned, referencing another judgment (Special Appeal No. 238 of 2024). The State Counsel suggested the petitioner could rely on this judgment before the appellate authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an order that is appealable under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, despite the existence of an alternate statutory remedy? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal, which was two years, should be ignored. This delay was attributed to the non-availability of the appellate forum, a situation arising from a prior judgment in Special Appeal No. 123 of 2022. The petitioner sought to rely on the judgment in Special Appeal No. 238 of 2024 to support their contention regarding the delay. Revenue/State's Argument: The State Counsel contended that the impugned order in Form DRC-07 is appealable under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act. They further submitted that the petitioner could place reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court in Special Appeal No. 238 of 2024 before the appellate authority.