Sheenu Arora vs. Union Of INDIA

WPMB/266/2024HC UttarakhandGSTCNR UKHC01010701202416 July 2024Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL2 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

Held

The Court held that the petitioner has an alternate statutory remedy of filing an appeal before the Commissioner, State Goods and Service Tax, against the order passed under Section 73(3). This appellate remedy is provided under Section 107(6) of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Since the Appellate Authority has been functioning since June 24, 2024, the petitioner can approach this authority. The Court found the writ petition to be not maintainable due to the availability of this effective alternate remedy. The Court dismissed the Writ Petition as withdrawn, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority was directed to consider any application for condonation of delay in accordance with the law.

Facts

The petitioner, Sheenu Arora, filed a Writ Petition before the Uttarakhand High Court challenging an order passed under Section 73(3) of the GST Act. The impugned order was dated January 16, 2023. The petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition to pursue an alternate remedy. The Court noted that the Appellate Authority under the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, had been functioning since June 24, 2024. The petitioner intended to file an appeal before this authority, which is a statutory remedy available under Section 107(6) of the Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has an alternate statutory remedy available against the impugned order dated January 16, 2023, passed under Section 73(3) of the GST Act? 2. Whether the Writ Petition is maintainable given the availability of an alternate remedy? The petitioner argued that they wished to withdraw the present Writ Petition to pursue the alternate remedy available under the law. The respondents, Union of India and others, did not appear to have made specific arguments on the maintainability of the writ petition, as the petitioner themselves sought to withdraw it. The Court's focus was on the existence and accessibility of the appellate remedy.

Sections Cited

Section 73(3), Section 107(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MS. RITU BAHRI AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL 16TH JULY, 2024 WRIT PETITION (M/B) No. 266 OF 2024 Sheenu Arora. …Petitioner Versus Union of India and others. …Respondent Counsel for the petitioner. : Mr. Rohit Arora, learned counsel. Counsel for respondent no. 1. : Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India. Counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3. : Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

JUDGMENT : (per Ms. Ritu Bahri, C.J.)

Petitioner has an alternate remedy of filing an Appeal before the Commissioner, State Goods and Service Tax against the order passed under Section 73(3), and the remedy of Appeal is under Section 107(6) of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, before the Commissioner.

The impugned order is dated 16.01.2023, and the Appellate Authority is functioning since 24.06.2024. The petitioner wants to withdraw this Writ Petition, and seek alternate remedy in accordance with law. Since the Appellate Authority is functioning si

The judgment continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free account Sign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Reproduced from the public record of the Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.