Concrete Additives And Chemicals Private Limited vs. State Tax Officer
Held
The Court held that the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy. The reasoning is that the impugned order passed under Section 129(3) of the Uttarakhand GST Act is appealable under Section 107 of the same Act. Since this statutory appeal mechanism is available and was not disputed by the petitioner, the High Court declined to entertain the writ petition directly. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts generally do not entertain writ petitions when an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved party. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act.
Facts
The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging an order passed under Section 129(3) of the Uttarakhand GST Act. The impugned order, dated 10.03.2023, imposed a penalty of Rs. 6,05,929/- on the petitioner. The petitioner sought to quash this order and obtain a refund of the deposited penalty. The State counsel submitted that the impugned order is appealable under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act. This submission was not disputed by the petitioner's counsel.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the availability of an alternate statutory remedy under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act? The petitioner argued for the maintainability of the writ petition, likely implying that the alternate remedy was either ineffective or that exceptional circumstances warranted direct High Court intervention. However, the judgment does not record specific arguments from the petitioner on this point beyond their initial filing of the writ petition. The State argued that the impugned order is appealable under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, thereby suggesting that the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.
Sections Cited
Section 129(3), Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
WPSS No. 86 of 2024 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
(1) Mr. Arun Pratap Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2) Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
(3) By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order U/s 129(3) bearing Reference No. ZD050323003978F dated 10.03.2023 (Annexure no. 1) issued by the Respondent and refund the amount Rs. 6,05,929/- deposited by the petitioner as penalty.
(ii) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction in favour of the petitioner; and/or allow any other consequential relief as this Hon’ble High Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
(4) Learned State Counsel submits that the order impugned in the writ petition is appealable under Section 107 of Uttarakhand GST Act.
(5) This submission is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitione
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.