Ms Tvs Srichakra Limited vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax
Held
The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternate statutory remedy. The Court noted that the petitioner's counsel did not dispute the submission made by the State Counsel regarding the existence of the appeal remedy. Although the petitioner's counsel initially pointed to a prior judgment that might have restricted this remedy, they fairly submitted that this judgment had since been reviewed on 24.06.2024, thereby making the remedy of appeal available again. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of alternate remedy. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Appellate Authority and was permitted to file the online appeal digitally within 24 hours.
Facts
The petitioner, Mr. Rohit Arora, challenged an order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the State Tax Officer, Jurisdiction Rudrapur – Sector 1, State/UT, Uttarakhand, under Section 129 of the Uttarakhand Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. The State Counsel raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, citing the availability of an alternate remedy under Section 107 of the Act. The petitioner's counsel acknowledged this but initially argued that the remedy was not available due to a prior judgment. However, the counsel then conceded that this judgment had been reviewed on 24.06.2024, reopening the appeal remedy.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternate remedy of appeal is available under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner's counsel initially contended that the alternate remedy of appeal was not available due to a previous judgment by a Division Bench of the High Court. However, the counsel later conceded that this judgment had been reviewed on 24.06.2024, and the remedy of appeal had been reinstated. Revenue/State's Argument: The State Counsel argued that the writ petition was not maintainable because the petitioner had an effective alternate remedy under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which allows for filing an appeal against the impugned order.
Sections Cited
Section 129, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
WPMS No. 1644 of 2024 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
(1) Mr. Rohit Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2) Mr. Tarun Lakhera, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
(3) Petitioner has challenged an order dated 07.03.2024 passed by State Tax Officer, Jurisdiction Rudrapur – Sector 1, State/UT, Uttarakhand, under Section 129 of Uttarakhand Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. (4) Learned State Counsel raised objection regarding maintainability of writ petition by contending that petitioner has remedy under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act of filing appeal.
(5) Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the said submission. He, however, submits that said remedy was earlier not available in view of judgment dated 20.06.2022 rendered by Division Bench of this Court in SPA No. 123 of 2022. He fairly submits that the said judgment has now been reviewed on 24.06.2024 and the remedy of appeal has been opened.
(6) Since petitioner has remedy of appe
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.
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.