Pushpa Sinha vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through The Secretary, Goods And Service Tax. Government Of Jharkhand

Facts

The petitioner, Pushpa Sinha, proprietor of Hotel Nayan Prity, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court challenging an order dated 20.10.2023. The petitioner claimed to be unaware of this order. The respondents, including the State of Jharkhand and UCO Bank officials, were arrayed in the petition. The State contended that the petition was inordinately delayed and that the impugned order was appealable under Section 107 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court noted that the petitioner's claim of unawareness of the order was a disputed issue.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's claim of being unaware of the impugned order was a disputed issue. However, it acknowledged that the impugned order dated 20.10.2023 was appealable under Section 107 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Therefore, the Court decided to dispose of the writ petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order. The Court explicitly stated that all contentions, including the contention regarding limitation, would be kept open for consideration in the appeal. The appeal, if instituted, was to be decided in accordance with the law after providing an opportunity of hearing to all parties. No costs were awarded.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the alleged inordinate delay and the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they were unaware of the impugned order, implying that the delay, if any, was due to this lack of knowledge. Revenue's contention: The State argued that the petition was inordinately delayed and that the impugned order dated 20.10.2023 was appealable under Section 107 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, thus questioning the maintainability of the writ petition.