Shri Vekatanarayana Mucherla vs. The Additional Commissioner

Held

The High Court held that against the impugned orders, an appeal lies to the appellate tribunal constituted under the provisions of the A.P. GST Act. It was noted that the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal has since been constituted and is functioning. Therefore, the Court deemed it appropriate to relegate the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy of appeal. The writ petitions were disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The period from the date of the impugned orders until the receipt of the High Court's order was to be excluded for the purpose of limitation. No costs were awarded.

Facts

These writ petitions were filed by various entities, including M/s. HLL Lifecare Limited, M/s. Lakhmichand Ispat, Shri Vekatanarayana Mucherla, and Apple and Olive IT Solutions Private Limited. The petitioners challenged orders passed by different GST authorities. For instance, M/s. HLL Lifecare Limited challenged the rejection of their appeal against a refund rejection order. M/s. Lakhmichand Ispat challenged the rejection of their appeal against a confiscation order, seeking refund of penalty and fine. Shri Vekatanarayana Mucherla challenged an order upholding a demand under Section 74 of the GST Act and subsequent recovery proceedings, as well as an order passed by the Assistant Director. Apple and Olive IT Solutions Private Limited challenged an order-in-appeal, asserting it was served in Hindi and handwritten, contrary to statutory provisions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain writ petitions challenging orders passed under the GST Act when an appellate tribunal has been constituted and is functioning, as per Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017 and corresponding State GST Act provisions. Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that the orders passed by the respondents were without jurisdiction, unconstitutional, unreasonable, and violative of principles of natural justice and constitutional provisions like Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A. They sought quashing of these orders and consequential reliefs, including refunds or setting aside of recovery proceedings. Revenue's contention: The respondents, through the Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, did not explicitly present arguments on the merits of the individual cases. However, the Court's decision implicitly relies on the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.