Ashok Singh vs. Commissioner Department Of State Goods And Services Tax

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The primary reason for this decision was the existence of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court noted that the petitioner had not disclosed the date of communication of the order under challenge, which is crucial for determining the limitation period for filing an appeal. Furthermore, it was not disputed that the statute provides for an alternative remedy. Consequently, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The Court dismissed the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal if they were so advised. The petitioner was also informed that it would be open for them to move an appropriate application for condonation of delay if they chose to file an appeal.

Facts

The petitioner, Ashok Singh, filed a writ petition before the Uttarakhand High Court challenging an order dated 23.12.2024, passed under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the corresponding State legislation. The respondents, represented by the Commissioner, Department of State Goods & Services Tax, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. They argued that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The revenue also highlighted that the Appellate Authority has the power to condone delays under Section 107(4) if sufficient cause is shown.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner's arguments are not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Argument: The revenue contended that the writ petition is not maintainable because the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. They further submitted that the Appellate Authority has the power to condone delay in filing the appeal under Section 107(4) of the Act if the appellant demonstrates sufficient cause for the delay. The revenue also pointed out that the petitioner failed to disclose the date of communication of the order being challenged.