Radhey Shyam Yadav vs. Assistant Commissioner Pithoragarh

Facts

The petitioner, Radhey Shyam Yadav, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand challenging an order dated 23.04.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Pithoragarh, 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 authority. The judgment does not specify the tax period or the amount in dispute.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal against the order dated 23.04.2025 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 principle established is that High Courts, in exercise of their writ jurisdiction, generally relegate parties to alternative statutory remedies when such remedies are efficacious and available. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition, relegating the petitioner to the alternative remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 63 of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017, when an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act is available? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner approached the High Court by way of a writ petition. (No specific argument regarding the alternative remedy was recorded in the judgment). Respondent's contention: The respondents, through the learned Brief Holder for the State, implicitly relied on the existence of the alternative remedy by not opposing the Court's inclination to relegate the petitioner to that path. (No specific argument recorded).