M/S Gm Powertech And Ors vs. State Of Hp And Ors

Held

The High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as filed because an efficacious alternative statutory remedy was available to the petitioners under Section 107 of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The court found that the petitioners' counsel failed to demonstrate any palpable breaches by the assessing authority or that the statutory remedy was inefficacious. However, addressing the petitioner's concern about frozen bank accounts hindering the deposit of 10% of the disputed tax, the court, based on the submission from the Sr. Additional Advocate General, directed that the bank concerned shall forthwith release 10% of the disputed sums of tax into the accounts of the statutory authority. The court also directed the petitioner to deposit the entire quantum of admitted tax liabilities contemporaneously with filing the statutory appeal. The petitioners were granted two weeks to file the appeal, and the statutory authority was directed to decide the appeal within four weeks thereafter. The court also permitted the petitioner to agitate the validity of any order freezing their bank accounts before the statutory authority.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s GM Powertech and others, filed a writ petition challenging assessment orders concerning GST levies, embodied in Annexures P-6 and P-7. The High Court noted that Section 107 of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, provides an alternative statutory remedy of appeal against such assessment orders. The petitioners' counsel could not convince the court that this remedy was either not befitting or not efficacious, nor did they demonstrate palpable breaches by the assessing authority that would render the statutory remedy inefficacious. The primary obstacle raised by the petitioner was the requirement under Section 107(6) to deposit 10% of the disputed tax and the entire admitted liability, especially since their bank accounts were frozen.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before the High Court given the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 107 of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that the alternative remedy under Section 107 was inefficacious and not befitting due to the freezing of their bank accounts, which prevented them from depositing the mandatory 10% of the disputed tax and the admitted tax liability. They argued that this obstacle de-facilitated their ability to file a duly constituted appeal. Revenue's argument: The Revenue, through the Sr. Additional Advocate General, stated on instructions that they had no objection if the bank was directed to release 10% of the disputed sums to the respondent authority to satisfy the statutory condition for filing the appeal. The court did not record any specific arguments from the revenue regarding the maintainability of the writ petition itself, other than their stance on the deposit condition.