M/S Astha Enterprises Through Its Proprietor vs. Assistant Commissioner State Tax

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of an alternate remedy. The reasoning was based on the submission made by the learned State Counsel, which the Court found to have substance. Since the order challenged in the writ petition is appealable under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, the Court dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the appellate authority. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition will generally not be entertained if an effective and efficacious alternate statutory remedy is available to the petitioner. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned, nor were any specific provisions other than Section 73 and Section 107 discussed in detail.

Facts

The petitioner, Ms. Prabha Naithani, has challenged an order dated 30.12.2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Haridwar, under Section 73 of the Uttarakhand GST Act. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court. The State Counsel brought to the Court's attention that the impugned order is appealable under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act. The Court considered this submission.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternate statutory remedy of appeal is available under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, under Section 73 of the said Act. Petitioner's Argument: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue/State's Argument: The learned State Counsel argued that the order impugned in the writ petition is appealable under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, implying that the writ petition should not be entertained due to the availability of this alternate remedy.