Arora Automobiles vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate

Held

The High Court held that since an appeal against the impugned order is already pending before the Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 3) and the petitioner's primary prayer is for the expedition of this appeal, there is no reason to keep the writ petition pending before the High Court. The Court found no merit in continuing the writ proceedings when a statutory remedy is available and actively being pursued. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the petitioner's appeal expeditiously, within a period not exceeding six months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. The Court did not decide on the merits of the original order or the appeal itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the writ petition.

Facts

The petitioner, Arora Automobiles, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand challenging an order dated May 17, 2022. The petitioner had previously filed an appeal against this order before Respondent No. 3, the Appellate Authority, under Section 107 of the U.K. GST Act, 2017. The writ petition was initially filed because an interim order was operating in a pending Special Appeal No. 246 of 2022. Now that the special appeal has been disposed of and the appeal before Respondent No. 3 is pending, the petitioner seeks an expedited decision on their appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should continue to hear the writ petition when an appeal against the impugned order is already pending before the statutory Appellate Authority, and the petitioner's primary prayer is for expedition of that appeal? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner candidly submitted that an appeal against the impugned order dated May 17, 2022, has been filed before Respondent No. 3 under Section 107 of the U.K. GST Act, 2017. The writ petition was filed due to an interim order in a pending Special Appeal No. 246 of 2022, which has now been disposed of. The petitioner's current request is for their appeal to be expedited. Respondent's Contention: The respondent, Commissioner State Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate, did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. However, the court's decision implies that the existence of a pending appeal before the appropriate authority negates the need for the High Court to retain the writ petition.