M/S Agarwal Timber Suppliers vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Held

The Court held that since an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the writ petition is not maintainable. The Court reasoned that the existence of an effective alternative remedy precludes the High Court from exercising its writ jurisdiction. The appellate authority, the Commissioner, is the appropriate forum to address the petitioner's grievances against the order imposing the penalty. Therefore, no interference by the High Court is warranted at this stage. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging an order dated July 17, 2019, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Uttarakhand Goods and Service Tax. This order imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,41,376/- on the petitioner. The State counsel informed the Court that the petitioner has an alternative remedy to file an appeal before the appellate authority, who is the Commissioner, under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court noted the existence of this alternative remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner has approached the High Court by way of a writ petition. (No specific arguments were recorded for the petitioner regarding the alternative remedy). Revenue's contention: The State counsel argued that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, to file an appeal before the Commissioner. Therefore, the High Court should not interfere.