M/S Star Industries Igc Samba J And K vs. U T Of J And K Th State Tax Officer Samba

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Star Industries IGC Samba J&K, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh challenging an order passed by the respondent (UT of J&K). The petitioner alleged that the impugned order violated the principles of natural justice. The Court noted that the petitioner had been put on notice and had submitted a reply to the respondent's notice. The Court found that the impugned order was not in patent violation of natural justice principles.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The Court reasoned that a statutory alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Section 107 of the SGST/CGST Act, 2017 was available to the petitioner. The Court reiterated the legal position, citing the Supreme Court in "Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and Ors Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd.", that High Courts should exercise self-imposed restraint and not entertain writ petitions if an alternative efficacious remedy exists. The Court found that the impugned order was not in patent violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner had been put on notice and had filed a reply. Therefore, the Court relegated the petitioner to the remedy of appeal under the Act. The Court also directed that the period spent by the petitioner in the High Court would be excluded from the computation of the limitation period for filing the appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable when an alternative efficacious remedy is available under the SGST/CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the writ petition was maintainable due to a violation of the principles of natural justice in the impugned order. Respondent's contention: The respondent, through the State's counsel, contended that a statutory alternative remedy under Section 107 of the SGST/CGST Act, 2017 was available, and therefore, the writ petition should not be entertained. The respondent relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in "Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and Ors Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd.", 2020 AIR (SC) 2819.