Shri Mantosh Deb vs. The State Of Tripura And Ors

Held

The High Court held that the issue raised in these writ petitions is covered by its previous order dated 27.01.2026 in Sri Satyajit Saha v. Union of India & others. Consequently, for reasons similar to the aforementioned case, the High Court disposed of these writ petitions. The Court granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the GST Appellate Tribunal, Agartala Bench, which was stated to be functional from 21.01.2026. This implies that the Court found the GST Appellate Tribunal to be the appropriate forum for the resolution of the petitioners' grievances, thereby directing them to exhaust this statutory remedy instead of pursuing relief through writ jurisdiction. The reasoning is based on the principle of directing parties to statutory forums when they are available and functional. Any pending applications in these writ petitions were also disposed of.

Facts

These writ petitions, WP(C) No.76 of 2025 and WP(C) No.78 of 2025, were filed by Shri Mantosh Deb and Shri Basudeb Chakraborty respectively. The petitioners are individuals operating businesses under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. The petitions challenge actions or orders passed by various GST authorities, including the State of Tripura and the Union of India. The specific nature of the dispute, the tax periods involved, and the exact amounts in dispute are not detailed in the provided judgment excerpt. The procedural history indicates that these petitions were heard by the High Court of Tripura.

Key Issues

The primary issue before the High Court was the appropriate forum for adjudicating the disputes raised by the petitioners concerning GST matters. The Court had to decide whether the writ petitions were maintainable or if the petitioners should be directed to approach a different statutory forum. The petitioners, represented by senior advocate Mr. Bibhal Nandi Majumder, likely argued for the maintainability of the writ petitions, possibly due to procedural irregularities or a lack of effective alternative remedies at the time of filing. The respondents, including the State of Tripura and the Union of India, represented by their respective counsel, likely contended that the petitioners should exhaust their statutory remedies, particularly by approaching the newly functional GST Appellate Tribunal. The judgment explicitly states that the issue is covered by a previous order in Sri Satyajit Saha v. Union of India & others.