Vipin Sharma vs. Additional Commissioner, Central GST And Central Excise, Agra
Held
The Court held that entertaining the present writ petition would offer a dual remedy, which is impermissible. The Court noted that the petitioner had already availed the statutory remedy of appeal against the Order-In-Original dated May 26, 2023, passed under Section 122 of the C.G.S.T. Act, 2017. Therefore, the High Court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction. The Court explicitly left open the option for the petitioner to press their statutory appeal. The reasoning was based on the established principle that writ petitions are generally not entertained when an effective alternative remedy is available and has been pursued. The ratio decidendi is that the High Court will not entertain a writ petition if the petitioner has already availed the statutory appeal remedy against the order under challenge.
Facts
The petitioner, Vipin Sharma, filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court challenging an Order-In-Original dated May 26, 2023, passed under Section 122 of the C.G.S.T. Act, 2017, by the Additional Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise, Agra. The revenue was the respondent. The petitioner stated that he had already availed the statutory remedy of filing an appeal against the said order. The writ petition was filed to seek relief against the Order-In-Original.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available and has been availed by the petitioner against the impugned order? This issue turns on the principles governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner argued that the writ petition was maintainable. The respondent-Revenue argued that since a statutory appeal remedy was available and availed, the writ petition should not be entertained, as it would lead to a dual remedy. The respondent relied on the principle that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and should not be exercised where an adequate alternative remedy exists.
Sections Cited
Section 122
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:210309-DB Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 942 of 2023 Petitioner :- Vipin Sharma Respondent :- Additional Commissioner, Central Gst And Central Excise, Agra Counsel for Petitioner :- Suyash Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- Krishna Agarawal Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.
Heard Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Krishna Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent- Revenue.
Undisputedly, against the Order-In-Original dated 26.05.2023 passed under Section 122 of C.G.S.T. Act, 2017 the petitioner has remedy of filing an appeal. That remedy is stated to have been availed by the petitioner.
In view of such statement made, no dual remedy may be offered by entertaining the present writ petition.
Accordingly, leaving it open to the petitioner to press statutory appeal, the present writ petition is dismissed on the ground of statutory remedy as may be available. Order Date :- 2.11.2023 SK Srivastava (Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.).. . . (S.D. Singh,J.) SAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
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 Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.