9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 468 - HC - GSTMaintainability of the petition on the ground of availability of statutory remedy as provided under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - violation of principles of the natural justice - HELD THAT - This Court is reminded of the decision of the Apex Court in Magadh Sugar Energy Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar, 2021 (10) TMI 691 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that ' The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person'. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner does not dispute that it has the right to assail the orders in appeal, this Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction does not deem it appropriate to entertain the petition which is accordingly dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to assail the impugned orders in terms of the appeal as provided in the statute. In case, if the petitioner files the appeal before the appellate authority within a period of three weeks from today then the same shall be considered on its own merits and the issue of limitation if involved shall be considered sympathetically by the appellate authority. It is made clear that Court has not examined the case of the petitioner on merits and the petition has been dismissed solely on the ground of availability of the statutory remedy.
Issues:
1. Maintainability of the petition due to the availability of statutory remedy under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 2. Allegation of violation of principles of natural justice in the impugned orders. 3. Argument regarding lack of digital signatures on the impugned orders. 4. Failure to issue a preliminary/consultative notice before passing the orders. 5. Lack of awareness by the petitioner regarding the orders being loaded on a new portal. 6. Exercise of discretionary jurisdiction by the High Court in light of the availability of alternative remedy. Detailed Analysis: The judgment by the Allahabad High Court involved a preliminary objection raised by the Additional Chief Standing Counsel regarding the maintainability of the petition due to the availability of a statutory remedy under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the impugned orders violated principles of natural justice, specifically highlighting the lack of digital signatures on the orders and the absence of a preliminary/consultative notice before their issuance. Additionally, the petitioner contended that they were unaware of the orders as they were loaded on a new portal, emphasizing the necessity of proper communication for the validity of the orders. The Court considered the provisions of Section 107, which allow for appeals against decisions or orders passed under the Act, and noted that while the petitioner had the right to challenge the orders in appeal, the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court did not warrant entertaining the petition solely on the grounds of alleged illegality in the orders. Furthermore, the Court referenced relevant Supreme Court decisions, including Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. vs. State of Bihar and PHR Invent Educational Society vs. UCO Bank, which emphasized the general principle that the High Court should not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution when an effective statutory remedy is available. Exceptions to this rule were outlined, such as instances where there is a violation of natural justice or the order is wholly without jurisdiction. The Court highlighted that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not compulsion, and exceptions may apply in specific circumstances. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the petition based on the availability of the statutory remedy, leaving the option open for the petitioner to challenge the impugned orders through the prescribed appeal process within a specified timeframe. The Court clarified that its decision was solely based on the statutory remedy's availability and did not involve a review of the petitioner's case on its merits.
|
