Ms Ringdom Industries PVT LTD vs. Commissioner Uttarakhand State Goods And Service Tax Commissionerate
Held
The Court held that the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy. The Court reasoned that Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act provides for an appeal against the impugned order. The petitioner's contention regarding the non-availability of the appellate remedy and the potential time-bar was addressed by the State Counsel's submission that the first appellate authority would examine the delay and the possibility of condonation. Therefore, the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal available. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal before the appropriate authority.
Facts
The petitioner has challenged an order dated January 30, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Goods & Services Tax, Sector-02, Kashipur, under Section 74 of the Uttarakhand GST Act. The petitioner argues that the remedy of appeal was not available until June 24, 2024, citing a previous judgment that held the Assistant Commissioner was not the adjudicating authority. The petitioner also contends that filing an appeal would be time-barred, as Section 107(4) of the Uttarakhand GST Act prescribes a three-month limitation period for appeals, extendable by one month.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternate remedy of appeal is available under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act. 2. Whether the petitioner can file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the order dated January 30, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner. 3. Whether the appeal, if filed, would be time-barred, considering the limitation period prescribed under Section 107(4) of the Uttarakhand GST Act and the petitioner's contention regarding the availability of the appellate remedy. Petitioner's arguments: The remedy of appeal was not available to the petitioner before June 24, 2024, due to a prior judgment. The appeal would be time-barred as the limitation period is three months, extendable by one month, and the petitioner's inability to file earlier was due to the non-availability of the appellate authority. Revenue's arguments: The learned State Counsel submitted that the first appellate authority will consider the question of delay and whether it can be condoned in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
Sections Cited
Section 74, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Act provides for appeal and the order impugned in this writ petition is appealable before the Commissioner (Appeals). (4)
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that remedy of appeal was not available to the petitioner before 24.6.2024, in view of judgment rendered in Special Appeal No. 123 of 2022, as vide judgment dated 20.6.2022, it was held that the Assistant Commissioner is not the adjudicating authority. He further submits that as per sub-section (4) of Section 107 of Uttarakhand GST Act, the limitation available for filing appeal is only three months, which is extendable by further per
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.