Gaurav Agarwal vs. Superintendent Central Goods And Services Tax
Facts
The petitioner, Gaurav Agarwal, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand challenging an order dated 03.05.2024, passed by the Superintendent Central Goods And Services Tax. This order had cancelled the petitioner's GST registration. The respondent, the Superintendent Central Goods And Services Tax, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. The respondent contended that the impugned order was appealable under the provisions of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The reasoning was based on the existence of an alternative statutory remedy. The Court referred to Section 107 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, which clearly provides that any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under the Act may appeal to the prescribed Appellate Authority within three months from the date of communication of the order. The Court found that the order impugned in the writ petition, being an order cancelling GST registration, falls within the ambit of Section 107. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have availed the remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority instead of approaching the High Court through a writ petition. The Court dismissed the writ petition in limine, with liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy available under the law.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner's side argued that the writ petition was maintainable. The respondent's side argued that the impugned order, which cancelled the petitioner's GST registration, is appealable under Section 107 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. The respondent relied on Section 107 of the Act, 2017, which prescribes the appeal process to the Appellate Authority.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2024:UHC:7242
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2659 of 2024 30 September, 2024
Gaurav Agarwal
--Petitioner Versus
Superintendent Central Goods And Services Tax
--Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Nishant Mishra, learned counsel holding brief of Mr.
Rohit Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the respondent. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.05.2024, passed by the respondent, whereby the GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled.
Learned counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the order impugned in the present writ petition is appealable and the appeal has been prescribed under Section 107 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short “the Act, 2017”).
Section 107 of the Act, 2017 is quoted
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 Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.