M/S Darshan Singh Nainwal A Proprietor Firm vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Darshan Singh Nainwal, a proprietor firm, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated April 29, 2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Division Haldwani, Nainital. The petitioner claimed to have a contractor license for 2016-17 but was using his contracts solely for transportation services, which he contended were exempt from service tax under the negative list. The Assistant Commissioner rejected this contention, finding it unsupported by documentation, and imposed a penalty. The petitioner was informed of his right to appeal to the Commissioner (Appeal), Dehradun, within sixty days but did not file an appeal. Instead, he filed the writ petition on September 14, 2022, challenging the Assistant Commissioner's order.

Held

The Court held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be entertained to challenge an order passed by an original adjudicating authority only in limited circumstances. These circumstances include when the authority has acted without jurisdiction, assumed jurisdiction that does not exist, acted in flagrant disregard to law, rules, or procedure, or violated principles of natural justice, resulting in a failure of justice or gross injustice. The Court found that the petitioner failed to satisfy these conditions. The Assistant Commissioner had considered the petitioner's contentions, afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and passed the order. There was no violation of principles of natural justice, rules, or procedure. The Court further noted that certiorari jurisdiction is not exercised for mere errors of fact or law unless a substantial question of law regarding jurisdiction arises and allowing the order to stand would perpetuate gross injustice, which was not the case here. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Assistant Commissioner, GST, when an alternative remedy of appeal is available. The petitioner argued that the writ petition is maintainable because he is left remediless, relying on observations from the Gujarat High Court and a Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court in a previous case. The petitioner contended that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was without jurisdiction or in flagrant disregard of law, rules, or procedure, or in violation of principles of natural justice, leading to a failure of justice or gross injustice. The respondents, represented by the State and another counsel, did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or the merits of the petitioner's claim. However, the court's analysis implies that the respondents would have argued against the maintainability or the merits of the petitioner's case.