M/S Latala Construction Company vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court dismissed the writ petition. The primary reason for dismissal was the petitioner's persistent absence on multiple hearing dates. Furthermore, the respondent's counsel brought to the Court's attention that an Order-in-Original had been passed, which provides an avenue for appeal. The Court implicitly accepted this submission, indicating that a writ petition might not be the appropriate recourse when an alternative statutory remedy exists and has been availed or is available. The constitutional validity of Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, and the M.P. GST Act, 2017, was not decided on merits due to the procedural default of the petitioner and the availability of an appellate remedy. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition will be dismissed for non-prosecution and where an alternative statutory remedy is available and has been pursued or can be pursued.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Latala Construction Company, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated 01.02.2021 and the constitutional validity of Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, and the M.P. GST Act, 2017. The petition was filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore. The petitioner did not appear on 25.10.2021, nor did they file any application for urgent hearing. On the date of the final hearing, the petitioner was again absent. The respondent's counsel informed the Court that an Order-in-Original had been passed, which is appellable.

Key Issues

1. Whether the constitutional validity of Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, and the M.P. GST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, and the M.P. GST Act, 2017. No specific arguments or reliance on any authorities were recorded in the judgment for the petitioner. Respondent's contention: The respondent's counsel submitted that an Order-in-Original had been passed in the case, which is an appellable order. This implies that the petitioner had an alternative remedy available.