Girish Upadhyay vs. Assistant Commissioner State Goods And Service Tax
Held
The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of an alternate remedy. The State Counsel's submission that the petitioner has a remedy under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for filing an appeal was not disputed by the petitioner's counsel. Although the petitioner's counsel pointed out that this remedy was previously unavailable due to a judgment dated 20.06.2022, they also fairly submitted that this judgment has now been reviewed on 24.06.2024, and the remedy of appeal has been opened. Therefore, since an effective alternate remedy is available to the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is granted liberty to approach the Appellate Authority.
Facts
The petitioner, represented by Mr. Rohit Arora, challenged an order dated 27.12.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Jurisdiction Tanakpur: Haldwani, State/UT, Uttarakhand. This order was issued under Section 73 of the Uttarakhand Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. The State Counsel, Mr. Tarun Lakhera, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, asserting that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the Act for filing an appeal. The petitioner's counsel acknowledged this submission but noted that this remedy was previously unavailable due to a judgment dated 20.06.2022. However, this judgment was reviewed on 24.06.2024, re-opening the appeal remedy.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court, given the existence of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that while an appeal remedy under Section 107 now exists, it was previously unavailable due to a Division Bench judgment. However, this judgment has since been reviewed, and the appeal remedy has been re-opened. The petitioner did not dispute the existence of the appeal remedy after the review. The State contended that the petitioner has a clear and efficacious alternative remedy under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, making the writ petition not maintainable.
Sections Cited
Section 73, 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. 1662 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 27.12.2023 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Jurisdiction Tanakpur: Haldwani, State/UT, Uttarakhand, under Section 73 of Uttarakhand Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. (4) Learned State Counsel raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition by contending that petitioner has remedy under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act for filing appeal.
(5) Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the said submission. He, however, submits that said remedy was earlier not available to petitioner 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 only on
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.