M/S Redic Labs Gstin vs. Assistant Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Redic Labs, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand challenging an order dated 03.01.2025, passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act. The respondent was the Assistant Commissioner. The petitioner's counsel conceded that an appeal would lie against the impugned order. Consequently, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition to pursue the appellate remedy.

Held

The Court held that since the petitioner conceded that an appeal would lie against the order passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, the writ petition was not the appropriate remedy. The Court reasoned that statutory remedies, such as appeals, are designed to address such grievances. Therefore, the Court dismissed the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to avail the remedy of appeal if they so advised. The Court did not decide on the merits of the order passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition will generally not be entertained when an effective alternative remedy is available and conceded by the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, should entertain a challenge to an order passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, through their counsel, conceded that an appeal would lie against the order dated 03.01.2025. They did not argue on the merits of the order but sought to withdraw the writ petition to avail the appellate remedy. Respondent's contention: The respondent, represented by their counsel, did not present any specific arguments on the merits of the case, given the petitioner's concession and prayer for withdrawal.