Steel Authority Of INDIA Limited Represented Thr Its Assistant Manager Liaison Sri Kameshwar Prasad vs. Union Of INDIA Through Its Secretary Department Of Revenue

Facts

The petitioner, Steel Authority of India Limited, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court challenging an Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central GST & Central Excise Division-I, Jamshedpur. The petitioner was represented by its Assistant Manager (Liaison). The respondents were the Union of India and the Assistant Commissioner. The writ petition was filed on a date not specified in the provided text, and the impugned order was passed by the respondent-authority. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner sought to challenge this order.

Held

The Court noted that an efficacious alternative remedy was available to the petitioner. Consequently, the counsel for the petitioner, acting on instructions from their client, stated that they were not pressing the writ petition. The intention was to challenge the impugned order through the available appellate mechanism. Therefore, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to prefer an appeal as provided under the law. Any interim relief previously granted was vacated. The Court did not delve into the merits of the Order-in-Original itself, as the petition was withdrawn on the ground of alternative remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy available against the Order-in-Original passed by the respondent-authority, as contemplated under the relevant GST laws? The petitioner's counsel, upon instruction, submitted that they were not pressing the writ petition. This implies an acknowledgment or understanding that an alternative remedy exists. The petitioner's argument, therefore, was not to press the current writ petition. The respondent's argument, as implied by the court's decision, would likely be that an alternative remedy is indeed available and should be pursued, making the writ petition inappropriate. No specific provisions of the GST Act or Rules were explicitly named in the arguments presented.