2020 (9) TMI 631 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - appealable order or not - Section 107 of the Goods and Services Act, 2017 - refund claim - HELD THAT - The aforesaid order is appealable under Section 107 of the Goods and Services Act, 2017, and no writ petition ought to be entertained in respect thereof - As there is an alternative remedy available to this petitioner, we are not inclined to entertain the prayer qua order dated 17th June, 2020. The petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal in accordance with law before the appropriate forum. Refund claim - HELD THAT - So far as the second claim of refund of ₹7,68,938/- is concerned, which was made on 23rd January, 2020 (Annexure P-3 to the memo of this petition), the same is yet to be decided by the respondents. The concerned respondent-authorities are directed to decide the refund application dated 23rd January, 2020 preferred by this petitioner, which is at Annexure P-3, in accordance with law, rules, regulations and Government policies applicable to the facts of the case within a period of three weeks from today, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the concerned party - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim of ?12,83,006 and ?7,68,938 under Goods and Services Act, 2017.
2. Rejection of the first claim by respondents.
3. Appealability of the rejected claim under Section 107 of the Goods and Services Act, 2017.
4. Availability of alternative remedy for the petitioner.
5. Pending decision on the second refund claim of ?7,68,938 made on 23rd January, 2020.
6. Direction to respondents to decide on the pending refund application within three weeks.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought a refund of ?12,83,006 and ?7,68,938 under the Goods and Services Act, 2017. The first claim dated 15th October, 2019 was rejected by the respondents through an order dated 17th June, 2020. The court noted that the order was appealable under Section 107 of the Act and emphasized the principle that a writ petition should not be entertained if an effective alternative remedy is available. Citing relevant case law, the court stated that when a statutory forum exists for grievance redressal, a writ petition should not be entertained. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to pursue an appeal in accordance with the law before the appropriate forum concerning the rejected claim.

Regarding the second claim of ?7,68,938 made on 23rd January, 2020, the court observed that it was yet to be decided by the respondents. Consequently, the court directed the concerned respondent-authorities to decide on this pending refund application within three weeks from the date of the judgment. The direction included a requirement for the decision to be made in compliance with applicable laws, rules, regulations, and government policies, ensuring adequate opportunity for the concerned party to be heard. Subsequently, the writ petition was disposed of based on these observations.