Sharma Construction Company Through Its Proprietor Shri Piyush Sharma vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the order under challenge was appealable under Section 107 of the GST Act. The petitioner's counsel fairly conceded this point. The Court found no sufficient grounds to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The Court reasoned that the existence of an inter se dispute between the petitioner and other respondents did not preclude the petitioner from availing the statutory appeal, and the appellate authority could look into such disputes. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition will not be entertained if an effective statutory remedy, such as an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, is available and no exceptional circumstances justify bypassing it. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition with liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy, with a caution that this liberty should not be construed as condonation of delay if the appeal becomes time-barred.

Facts

The petitioner, Sharma Construction Company, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 31.03.2026 passed by the State Tax Officer, State GST. This order imposed GST on royalty paid for mining and Krishi. The petitioner sought to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal, citing an inter se dispute between the petitioner and respondents No. 4 to 6. The revenue was represented by the Union of India and the State. The tax period for which the GST was imposed is not explicitly stated. The procedural history involves the filing of the writ petition after the impugned order was passed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when a statutory remedy of appeal is available under the GST Act, as per Section 107 of the GST Act? Arguments for the petitioner: The petitioner argued that the writ petition was filed due to an inter se dispute between the petitioner and respondents No. 4 to 6, implying this dispute necessitated bypassing the appellate route. The petitioner did not explicitly argue that the inter se dispute could not be considered by the appellate authority. Arguments for the revenue: The revenue, represented by the Union of India and the State, implicitly contended that the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act should be availed, as the petitioner's counsel conceded the order was appealable. No specific authorities or precedents were mentioned in the judgment for either side.