2023 (7) TMI 35 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - non-availability of alternative remedy of appeal - Violation of principles of natural justice - Non-speaking order - contention raised by the petitioner has not been properly dealt with - HELD THAT - On perusal of the impugned order, it is found that the same contains reasons and it is a detailed order and sufficiency of the reasons to the satisfaction of the petitioner cannot be a ground for avoiding alternative remedy by way of appeal since the impugned order is an appealable order under the relevant provisions of the WBGST Act - Furthermore, this is not a case where the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice or the order has been passed by the authority having inherent lack of jurisdiction and it is also not a case that the ground or the issue raised in this writ petition is barred under the statute for adjudication by the Appellate Authority. The petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy by way of appeal.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned order under WBGST Act for lack of reasoning and sufficiency of reasons.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order dated 16th December, 2022, passed by the Adjudicating Authority under the WBGST Act, following a remand order by the court in a previous writ petition. The earlier petition was filed due to the lack of reasoning in the impugned order, which led to the court directing the authority to consider the petitioner's representation and issue a detailed, reasoned order. The current challenge by the petitioner asserts that the new order is still lacking in sufficient reasoning, questioning the adequacy of the reasons provided. However, upon examination of the impugned order, the judge found that it contained detailed reasons, making it appealable under the WBGST Act. The judge noted that the sufficiency of reasons, to the petitioner's satisfaction, is not a valid ground to bypass the available remedy of appeal. The judge further clarified that the impugned order was not in violation of natural justice principles, lacked jurisdiction, or was barred for adjudication by the Appellate Authority.

The judge, based on the above analysis, decided not to entertain the current writ petition (WPA 648 of 2023) due to the availability of an alternative remedy through appeal. The dismissal of the writ petition does not impact the petitioner's right to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Additionally, the refusal to entertain the writ petition does not prevent the respondent authority from releasing the vehicle in question if the petitioner follows the necessary procedures in accordance with the law.