T K Elevator INDIA Private Limited Janipur Jammu Th Sanjeev Kumar vs. State Tax Officer State Tax Deptt Circle J Jammu

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. It reasoned that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any of the exceptions recognized by the Supreme Court for entertaining a writ petition when an alternative statutory remedy is available. Specifically, the petitioner did not establish a lack of jurisdiction on the part of the assessing authority, nor did they allege a violation of the principles of natural justice. The existence of an appealable order under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, provided an equally efficacious remedy. Therefore, the Court declined to entertain the petition. The petitioner was granted liberty to avail the statutory remedy of appeal, and the time spent in the High Court was to be excluded for limitation purposes. The Court also suggested the appellate authority consider condoning any delay.

Facts

The petitioner, T.K. Elevator India Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 27.08.2022 passed by the State Tax Officer, Jurisdiction Circle-‘J’ Jammu. This order rejected the petitioner's refund claim. The impugned order was passed by the assessing authority. The petitioner did not challenge the vires of any provision of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, nor did they allege a lack of jurisdiction or violation of principles of natural justice by the authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an equally efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available to the petitioner? The petitioner contended that the writ petition was maintainable. The respondent (State Tax Officer) argued that the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, barred the entertainment of the writ petition. The Court's decision was based on established precedents from the Supreme Court, including Whirlpool Corpn. V. Registrar of Trade Marks (1998) 8 SCC 1, which outline exceptions for entertaining writ petitions when statutory remedies exist.