2024 (6) TMI 113 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - availability of statutory alternative remedy of appeal - HELD THAT - The crucial question is whether there is transfer of business or not, which basically is a question of fact, and requires determination based on evidence or material to arrive at a definite finding. The impugned order records that there was transfer of business. Such a question can well be determined by the appellate authority. It is not such a ground that cannot be taken before the appellate authority. The submission that the impugned order is without jurisdiction is not convincing. The reason is that the order on the face of it cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. It is not the argument of the learned counsel for petitioner that the authority passing the impugned order inherently lacked jurisdiction - it is not considered appropriate to enter into the disputed question of fact. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the statutory alternative remedy, if so advised, this Writ Petition is dismissed only on the ground of statutory alternative remedy.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Whether the writ petition is entertainable despite the availability of statutory alternative remedy of appeal.

Summary:
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh heard arguments from both parties regarding the appealability of the impugned order under statute. The Junior Standing Counsel raised a preliminary objection stating that the writ petition should not be entertained due to the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal. The petitioner's counsel argued that the impugned order, which held a transfer of ownership of business, was passed without jurisdiction as the petitioner had only purchased assets and not the business itself. The counsel contended that Section 85 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was not applicable in this case. The Court considered the submissions and referred to relevant legal precedents regarding the transfer of business. It was noted that the question of whether there was a transfer of business is a factual matter that can be determined by the appellate authority. The Court found that the impugned order was not without jurisdiction, and therefore, dismissed the writ petition on the ground of the availability of a statutory alternative remedy. No costs were awarded, and pending interlocutory applications were closed.