Vedant Road Carriers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner State Goods And Service Tax Jorasanko And Jorabagan Charge And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Vedant Road Carriers Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order passed by the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax (WBGST) authority. The petitioner argued that the order was illegal. The State, represented by the Assistant Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax, Jorasanko & Jorabagan Charge & Ors., appeared. The Court noted that the impugned order was an appellable order under the statute. The Court also observed that the order was not passed in violation of natural justice, nor was it contrary to any specific provision of law, nor had any procedural irregularity been committed.

Held

The Court held that the impugned adjudication order was an appellable order under the statute. It found that the order was not passed in violation of the principle of natural justice, nor was it contrary to any specific provisions of law, nor had any procedural irregularity been committed in its passing. Consequently, the Court concluded that the impugned order was not so exceptional as to warrant entertainment by the High Court in writ jurisdiction, especially given the availability of an alternative statutory remedy. Therefore, the Court declined to grant any relief on the merits of the challenge to the adjudication order itself. However, to provide a procedural avenue, the Court extended the time for the petitioner to file a statutory appeal by two weeks. The appellate authority was directed to consider and dispose of the appeal on its merits, without raising the point of limitation, if filed within the stipulated period.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned adjudication order, being an appellable order under the statute, can be entertained by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction, despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the adjudication order was illegal and sought relief from the High Court. The specific grounds for illegality were not detailed in the judgment, but the challenge was implicitly based on the order being contrary to law or procedure. Revenue's contention: The State argued that the impugned order was an appellable order under the statute and that the High Court should not entertain the writ petition due to the availability of an alternative remedy. They did not explicitly argue on the merits of the adjudication order itself, but rather on the procedural appropriateness of the High Court's intervention.