Raj Kumar Mondal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mobnoharkatra And N.S. Road Charge And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Raj Kumar Mondal, filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging an order cancelling his GST registration. The petitioner contended that the cancellation was done without providing an opportunity of hearing, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The petitioner approached the High Court directly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, bypassing the statutory remedy available under Section 30 of the GST Act for revocation of cancellation of registration. The State, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Monoharkatra & Anr., and the Union of India were the respondents.
Held
The High Court held that the writ petition was not tenable on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy under Section 30 of the GST Act. The Court reasoned that there is no specific bar under the statute preventing the respondent authority from deciding the issues raised by the petitioner in their application for revocation. The petitioner is free to raise all points and submit all supporting documents before the authority concerned. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, but clarified that this dismissal would not prevent the petitioner from filing an application under Section 30 of the GST Act and raising all the points argued in the writ petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging the cancellation of GST registration when an alternative statutory remedy for revocation is available under Section 30 of the GST Act? The petitioner argued that the cancellation of registration was a violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was provided. They contended that this procedural illegality warranted direct invocation of the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner's stance was that the availability of an alternative remedy does not preclude the High Court from exercising its writ powers in cases of fundamental procedural flaws. The State and the Union of India, while not explicitly detailing their arguments on the merits of the cancellation, implicitly supported the view that the statutory remedy under Section 30 of the GST Act should be pursued first. Their position suggested that the petitioner should exhaust the prescribed legal channels before approaching the High Court.
Sections Cited
Section 30
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2022 Monoharkatra & Anr. Mr. Anil Dugar, Mr. Rajarshi Chatterjee, Mr. Gobinda Dey, Mr. Rituraj Chakraborty … For the Petitioner. Mr. A. Roy, Ld. GP Mr. S. Mukherjee, Mr. Debasish Ghosh … For the State. Mr. Partha Chakraborty. … For the UOI. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties. In this writ petition, petitioner has come up against the impugned order of cancellation of registration without approaching the authority under Section 30 of the GST Act by making application for revocation of cancellation of registration and the petitioner straight way in spite of availability of alternative remedy intends to invoke Constitutional writ juri iction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that before cancellation of his registration, no opportunity of hearing was given and there was violation of principle of natural justice. This contention of the petitioner is not tenable since there is no specific bar under the statute that the respondent authority concerned cannot decide the issue, which has been raised in this writ petition and the petitioner is free to take all the points and place all 2 the documents in support of his contention for revocation of cancellation of registration. Considering the submission of the parties, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under Section 30 the GST Act. This writ petition, being WPA 507 of 2022 is dismissed. However, dismissal of this writ petition will not prevent the petitioner from making any application before the authority concerned, under Section 30 of the GST Act and take all the points raised in this writ petition. ( Md. Nizamuddin, J. )
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.