Pitambra Trades Trade Name Shomil Shrivastava Legal Name vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the impugned order was appealable under Section 112 of the GST Act before the GST Appellate Tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for withdrawal of the case with liberty to file an appeal within thirty days from the date of opening of the Bench by the Tribunal. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn with the liberty granted to the petitioner to file an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal within the specified period.

Facts

The petitioner, Pitambra Trades (trade name Shomil Shrivastava), filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. The petition challenged an order passed under the GST Act. The respondent was the State of Madhya Pradesh and others. The petitioner's counsel sought permission to withdraw the case. The reason for withdrawal was that the impugned order was appealable before the GST Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner requested liberty to file an appeal before the Tribunal within thirty days from its opening date.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before the High Court when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal to the GST Appellate Tribunal is available under Section 112 of the GST Act? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner did not explicitly argue on the maintainability of the writ petition. However, by seeking withdrawal to pursue the statutory remedy, it implicitly acknowledged the availability and appropriateness of the appellate route. Revenue's argument: The respondent, the State of Madhya Pradesh and others, did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. The Government Advocate appeared for the respondent.