Devendra Singh Jalal vs. The State Of Uttarakhand

Facts

The appellant, Devendra Singh Jalal, filed a Special Appeal challenging an order dated 04.03.2024 by the learned Single Judge. The Single Judge had stayed the effect of orders dated 14.10.2022, 18.10.2022, and 05.01.2024, which were impugned in a writ petition, on the condition that the appellant furnish a bank guarantee equal to the demanded tax amount. The respondents, the State of Uttarakhand and others, argued that the writ petition and Special Appeal were not maintainable as the appellant had an alternative remedy of appeal. The appellant contended that at the time of filing the writ petition, the Appellate Authority was not functioning, thus the remedy was unavailable. Both parties agreed that the Appellate Authority is now functional.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition and the Special Appeal are not maintainable in their present form because the appellant now has an effective alternative remedy. Citing its own previous order in Review Application MCC No. 1 of 2022 in Special Appeal No. 123 of 2022 (Vinod Kumar vs. Commissioner, Uttarakhand State GST and others), the Court observed that orders passed by the Proper Officer are appealable before the Commissioner of State Tax under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Consequently, the Court disposed of the main writ petition by granting the appellant liberty to approach the Appellate Authority. The Court further directed that the Appellate Authority shall not consider the time taken by the appellant before the High Court for the purpose of calculating the limitation period for filing the appeal. The Special Appeal was disposed of in terms of the order passed in the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition and Special Appeal are maintainable given the availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that when the writ petition was initially filed, the Appellate Authority was not functioning, rendering the statutory remedy unavailable. Therefore, the writ petition was maintainable as an extraordinary remedy. The respondents contended that the writ petition and Special Appeal are not maintainable because the appellant has a clear and effective remedy of filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority, as provided under the Act. They relied on the principle that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when an alternative remedy exists, especially when the Appellate Authority is now operational.