M/S Four Way Medicate Shalteng Th.Its Proprietor vs. Union Territory Of J And K (Finance Department) And Ors

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable with respect to the reliefs seeking to quash the demand order dated October 5, 2023 (Reliefs A & B) because an alternative remedy of appeal was available before the Appellate Authority. Regarding Relief C, the Court acknowledged the petitioner's submission that a rectification application was filed on February 14, 2025, and that Respondent No. 3 had not yet decided it. Consequently, the Court directed Respondent No. 3 to consider and decide the rectification application within a period of three weeks from the date of the order. The decision taken on the rectification application was to be conveyed to the petitioner. The Court did not decide on the merits of the demand order itself.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Four Way Medicate, through its proprietor, filed a writ petition challenging an order of demand dated October 5, 2023, issued by Respondent No. 3. The petitioner sought to quash this order, along with assessment and demand orders (GST ASMT-13 and GST DRC 07) dated October 5, 2023, arguing they were illegal and violative of natural justice. Additionally, the petitioner requested a mandamus directing Respondent No. 3 to decide a rectification application filed on February 14, 2025, concerning the impugned order. The Court noted that the demand order was appealable, and the writ petition was not maintainable for reliefs A and B due to the availability of an alternative remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned demand order dated October 5, 2023, as per the relevant provisions of the GST Act? 2. Whether a direction should be issued to Respondent No. 3 to consider and decide the rectification application filed by the petitioner on February 14, 2025, within a stipulated timeframe? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were void ab initio, illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice, seeking their quashment. For the second issue, the petitioner contended that Respondent No. 3 had failed to decide their rectification application filed on February 14, 2025, and sought a direction for its expeditious disposal. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue or state respondents.