Ms Special Biochem Private Limited vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Held

The Court found substance in the submissions of the learned State Counsel. Regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, the Court held that since the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, the writ petition is not maintainable. The Court reasoned that the existence of an effective alternate remedy precludes the High Court from entertaining a writ petition. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of alternate statutory remedy. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the appellate authority. The issue concerning the violation of principles of natural justice due to the denial of a personal hearing was not decided on merits, as the petition was dismissed on procedural grounds.

Facts

The petitioner, a taxable person registered under the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, is challenging an order dated March 2, 2024, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-3, Rudrapur, under Section 73 of the Act. The petitioner contends that principles of natural justice were violated due to the denial of a personal hearing, as stipulated under Section 75(4) of the Act. The State Counsel argued that a show cause notice was issued and the statute does not mandate a personal hearing. They also asserted that the petitioner did not request a personal hearing during the proceedings. Furthermore, the State Counsel pointed out that the impugned order is appealable under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, making the writ petition dismissible on grounds of an alternate remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the denial of a personal hearing to the petitioner, a taxable person registered under the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, violates the principles of natural justice as enshrined in Section 75(4) of the Act. The petitioner argued that the absence of a personal hearing constitutes a violation of natural justice. The State Counsel contended that the statute does not mandate personal hearings and that the petitioner failed to request one during the proceedings, rendering the grievance untenable. 2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the existence of an alternate statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017. The State Counsel argued that the availability of an appeal under Section 107 bars the maintainability of the writ petition. The petitioner's stance on this issue is not explicitly recorded, but the court's decision implies they did not successfully counter this argument.