M/S Nakoda Metal House vs. The State Of Maharashtra Through The Finance Secretary Mumbai

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s. Nakoda Metal House, filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated March 22, 2024. This order imposed a tax liability of Rs. 14,44,440/- upon the Petitioner under Section 73 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (MGST Act). The Respondents were the State of Maharashtra and other authorities. The High Court noted that the Petitioner had an alternate statutory remedy available to challenge the impugned order.

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner has an alternate remedy of assailing the impugned order dated March 22, 2024, which imposed a tax liability of Rs. 14,44,440/- under Section 73 of the MGST Act, by approaching the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the MGST Act. The Court found no reason to entertain the writ petition given the existence of this statutory appeal mechanism. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition. The Petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the MGST Act. No order as to costs was made. The judgment did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner has an effective alternate remedy against the impugned order dated March 22, 2024, imposing a tax liability of Rs. 14,44,440/- under Section 73 of the MGST Act? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner approached the High Court by way of a writ petition, implicitly suggesting that the writ jurisdiction was the appropriate recourse, or that the alternate remedy was not effective or available. No specific arguments were recorded in the judgment regarding the Petitioner's stance on the alternate remedy. Revenue/State's Contention: The Respondents, through the Additional Government Pleader and advocates, contended that the Petitioner possessed an alternate remedy under Section 107 of the MGST Act to assail the order passed under Section 73 of the MGST Act.