M/S Kotdwar Steel PVT. LTD. vs. State Of Uttarakhand
Held
The Court held that the petitioner has an alternative remedy available under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This section provides for an appeal to the appellate authority, who is the Commissioner. Given the existence of this statutory remedy, the Court found no reason to interfere with the matter through a writ petition. The Court's reasoning is based on the principle that writ jurisdiction is an extraordinary remedy and should not be invoked when an equally effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved party. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition challenging an order that is appealable under a specific statutory provision will be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition.
Facts
The petitioner, aggrieved by an order dated 25.10.2019 cancelling their GSTIN registration, filed a writ petition before the High Court. The order cancelling the registration was passed by an unspecified authority. The State/respondent informed the Court that the petitioner possesses an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, to file an appeal before the Commissioner, who is the appellate authority. The tax period and the amount in dispute are not specified in the judgment. The procedural history is limited to the filing of the writ petition and the submission by the State regarding the alternative remedy.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy against the order cancelling their GSTIN registration, as contemplated under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Contentions: Petitioner: The petitioner did not argue on the existence of an alternative remedy. Their primary action was filing a writ petition, implying a challenge to the order directly. State/Respondent: The State argued that the petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, to file an appeal before the Commissioner, and therefore, the writ petition should not be entertained by the High Court.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
WPMS No.3459 of 2019 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
Ms. Manisha Bhandari, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Additional CSC, with Ms. Anjali, Bhargava, Brief Holder, for the State/respondent nos.1 & 2. Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Central Government Standing Counsel, for the Union of India/respondent no.
The petitioner before this Court is aggrieved by the order dated 25.10.2019, whereby GSTIN registration of the petitioner has been cancelled. Learned State Counsel has apprised this Court that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 to file an appeal before appellate authority who is the Commissioner. Since the petitioner has an alternative remedy to file an appeal, no interference is being called for by this Court in the matter. The writ petition stands dismissed on ground of alternative remedy.
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)
2019 Nitesh/
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.