Susheela Gopal Nayak vs. The State Of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary And 2 Ors
Facts
The petitioner, Susheela Gopal Nayak, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Goa challenging a show cause notice and a corrigendum issued by the State Tax Officer, Panaji Ward. During the pendency of this petition, the Commercial Tax Officer, Panaji-Goa, passed a final order dated 03.02.2021 under Section 74 of the Central Goods And Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Goa Goods & Services Tax, 2017. This final order was not challenged in the present petition. The petitioner has an alternate remedy to challenge this order before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Goods And Services Tax Act.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition had become infructuous because a final order dated 03.02.2021 had been passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act and the Goa GST Act, and this order had not been challenged by the petitioner in the present proceedings. The Court noted that the petitioner has an alternate statutory remedy to challenge the said order before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Goods And Services Tax Act. Therefore, the petition was disposed of on these terms. The Court explicitly stated that the petition was not considered on merits, and all contentions of the parties were kept open. The Court also directed that if an application for de-freezing of the petitioner's account is filed, the appropriate authority shall decide it expeditiously.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition remains maintainable in light of the subsequent final order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, which has not been challenged by the petitioner. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner had initially challenged the show cause notice and corrigendum. The subsequent passing of the final order by the Commercial Tax Officer, which was not challenged in this petition, renders the current writ petition infructuous. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not explicitly argue on the maintainability of the petition. However, the court noted that the petitioner has an alternate remedy to challenge the final order.
Sections Cited
Section 74, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
903-WP-386-2021.DOC Maria S. IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.386 OF 2021 Susheela Gopal Nayak ..Petitioner Versus The State of Goa, thr. its Chief Secretary And 2 Ors. ..Respondents Mr. R. K. Tomar with Mr. P. P. Shirodkar, Advocates for the Petitioner. Ms. Ankita Kamat, Additional Government Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM: REVATI MOHITE DERE & M. S.JAWALKAR, JJ. DATED: 28th October, 2021
P.C. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
The aforesaid petition was filed challenging the show cause notice and the corrigendum issued by the respondent No.3- The State Tax Officer, Panaji Ward.
It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the aforesaid petition, the Commercial Tax Officer, Panaji-Goa has passed the final order dated 03.02.2021 under Section 74 of the Central Goods And Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Goa Goods & Services Tax, 2017. The said order has not been challenged in this petition. 28th October 2021
903-WP-386-2021.DOC
Considering the aforesaid, nothing survives for consideration in the aforesaid petition. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has an alternate remedy to challenge the said order da
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.