Varsha Rawat vs. State Of Uttarakhand

WPMS/1822/2024HC UttarakhandGSTCNR UKHC01010140202409 July 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

Held

The Court held that since the statute provides for a remedy of appeal to the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum, implying the appellate authority. The reasoning is based on the principle that writ jurisdiction is an extraordinary remedy and should not be invoked when an effective alternative remedy exists. The operative direction is the dismissal of the writ petition with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.

Facts

The petitioner challenged an order passed under Section 73(1) of the Uttarakhand GST Act on 24.05.2022. The State counsel raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, citing the statutory remedy of appeal available under Section 107 of the Act. The petitioner's counsel argued that the appeal remedy was not initially available due to a previous judgment dated 20.06.2022 in SPA No. 123 of 2022, but has recently become available following a review order dated 24.06.2024.

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? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the statutory remedy of appeal was not open at the time of filing the writ petition due to a prior judgment. However, this position changed with a subsequent review order that reopened the appeal remedy. Revenue's Contention: The State counsel contended that the writ petition is not maintainable because a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act is available to the petitioner.

Sections Cited

Section 73(1), Section 107

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS WPMS No. 1822 of 2024 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Ankur Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, Brief Holder for the State. 3. Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocate for respondent no. 10. 4.

Petitioner has challenged the order passed under Section 73(1) of the Uttarakhand GST Act. The said order was passed on 24.05.2022. 5. Learned State Counsel raised objection that in view of the statutory remedy available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the Act, the writ petition would not be maintainable.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that remedy of appeal was earlier not open in view of judgment dated 20.06.2022 rendered in SPA No. 123 of 2022 and the remedy of appeal has recently been opened when the said judgment was reviewed by subsequent order dated 24.06.2024. 7. Be that as it may, since statute provides for remedy of appeal to the petitioner, therefore, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy with liberty to the pet

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.

Create a free account Sign in

See plans and prices

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.