Radhey Shyam Yadav vs. Assistant Commissioner Pithoragarh

Facts

The petitioner, Radhey Shyam Yadav, filed a writ petition before the Uttarakhand High Court challenging an order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Pithoragarh (respondent no.1) under Section 63 of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017. This order was preceded by a show cause notice dated 14.10.2024. The petitioner sought relief from the High Court against these actions of the revenue authorities. The petition was heard by a Division Bench of the High Court.

Held

The High Court held that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal against the order dated 21.04.2025 under Section 107 of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017. In view of the availability of this statutory remedy, the Court declined to examine the controversy on merits. The Court's reasoning was based on the principle that writ jurisdiction is an extraordinary remedy and should not be exercised when a specific and effective alternative remedy is provided by the statute. The ratio decidendi is that statutory remedies must be exhausted before approaching the High Court under its writ jurisdiction, unless there are exceptional circumstances not present in this case. Consequently, the Court relegated the petitioner to the alternative remedy available under the Act. No specific issue was left undecided, as the Court chose not to delve into the merits of the case.

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 the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017? The petitioner argued for the High Court to entertain the writ petition, likely contending that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was without jurisdiction or suffered from a patent illegality, thus warranting intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner may have sought to bypass the appellate route due to perceived futility or urgency. The respondents, represented by the State's learned brief holder, would have contended that the petitioner has a clear and efficacious alternative remedy under Section 107 of the Act, and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. They would have likely argued that the High Court should not exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction when a statutory mechanism for redressal exists.