M/S Baswant Builders And Developers PVT. LTD. vs. The Union Of INDIA Through The Secretary And Another
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Baswant Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The challenge was directed against a notice dated December 31, 2020, an order passed by the Commissioner, Goods and Services Tax dated July 28, 2022, and a subsequent order dated May 19, 2023, which rejected the petitioner's application for rectification. The respondents were the Union of India and another authority. The judgment does not specify the tax period or the amount in dispute. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner first received a notice, then an order from the Commissioner, and subsequently had a rectification application rejected by the same Commissioner.
Held
The High Court held that it was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The reasoning was based on the existence of a statutory appellate remedy available to the petitioner under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, before the Appellate Tribunal. The Court found that invoking the writ jurisdiction was inappropriate when a clear alternative legal recourse was provided by the statute. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts should generally relegate parties to statutory remedies when they are available and effective, rather than exercising extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy. The Appellate Tribunal was directed to consider and decide the appeal expeditiously, within three months, in accordance with law. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when a statutory appellate remedy is available to the petitioner? (Question of law) The petitioner, M/s. Baswant Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., argued for the High Court to entertain the writ petition. The respondents, the Union of India and another authority, contended that a statutory appellate remedy was available and should be pursued. The judgment does not explicitly detail the arguments of each side beyond this fundamental procedural point.
Sections Cited
Section 86
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
{1} 902 sr.no..odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10358 OF 2023 M/s. Baswant Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. … Petitioners Versus The Union of India through the Secretary and another. … Respondents. Mr. Alok Madangopal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. D.B. Gaikwad, Advocate for the respondent No.1 Mr. Dwarkadas Ladda, Advocate for respondent No.
CORAM : DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. & ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 25th August, 2023. P.C. :- Our juri iction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this case has been invoked to challenge the notice dated 31st December, 2020; the order passed by the Commissioner, Goods and Services Tax dated 28th July, 2022 and also the order dated 19th May, 2023, whereby, the application seeking rectification made by the petitioner was rejected by the Commissioner.
Admittedly, against the said orders, a statutory appellate remedy is available under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994 before the Appellate Tribunal.
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.