Raghav Steels vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Held

The Court held that the proper remedy available against an order passed under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, after the review application was decided on June 26, 2024, was to approach the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), State Tax, Dehradun. The Court noted that the petitioner's appeal against the order of penalty under Section 122 of the Act had been filed but not registered. Consequently, the Court directed that no recovery shall be effected from the petitioner until the appeal is registered. The reasoning is based on the availability of a statutory remedy under Section 107 of the Act. The ratio decidendi is that statutory remedies must be exhausted before approaching the High Court through a writ petition, and interim relief can be granted to protect the petitioner until the statutory appeal is processed.

Facts

The petitioner, Raghav Steels, filed a writ petition before the Uttarakhand High Court challenging an order passed under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner had previously filed a review application which was decided on June 26, 2024. The petitioner's appeal against an order of penalty under Section 122 of the Act had been filed but not registered. The State of Uttarakhand and others were the respondents. The dispute pertains to an order of penalty under Section 122 of the Act, with the appeal not yet registered.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), State Tax, Dehradun, is the appropriate appellate authority against an order passed under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, after a review application has been decided? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the proper remedy available was to approach the Joint Commissioner (Appeals). Revenue/State's contention: The respondents did not explicitly state their contentions regarding the appropriate forum, but the Court's observation implies the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) is the correct authority. The Court also referred to Section 107(6) of the Act regarding pre-deposit for recovery of penalty, suggesting the appeal process under this section was relevant.