Ms Ringdom Industries PVT LTD vs. Commissioner Uttarakhand State Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate

Held

The Court held that a writ petition is not maintainable when an alternate statutory remedy of appeal is available. The Court noted that Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act provides for an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). While the petitioner raised concerns about the availability of the appellate remedy and the potential for the appeal to be time-barred, the Court found that these issues could be addressed by the appellate authority. The State Counsel submitted that the first appellate authority would look into the question of delay and whether it could be condoned. Therefore, the Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of alternate remedy, granting 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 argued 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 contended that an appeal, if filed now, would be time-barred, as Section 107(4) of the Uttarakhand GST Act prescribes a three-month limitation period, extendable by one month. The State counsel pointed out that Section 107 of the Act provides for an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals).

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's contention that the appeal would be time-barred, given the previous judgment and the limitation period under Section 107(4) of the Uttarakhand GST Act, prevents the invocation of the appellate remedy? The petitioner argued that the remedy of appeal was unavailable until June 24, 2024, due to a prior judgment (Special Appeal No. 123 of 2022) which held the Assistant Commissioner was not the adjudicating authority. They further contended that any appeal filed now would be time-barred as per Section 107(4) of the Uttarakhand GST Act, which allows only three months for filing, extendable by one month. The revenue, through the State Counsel, argued that Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act provides for an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and that the appellate authority would consider the issue of delay and condonation in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.