High Court Rejects Writ Petition on GST Order, Directs Petitioner to Utilize Statutory Appeal Mechanism Under Section 107

HC dismissed writ petition challenging GST order, holding that alternative statutory remedy under Section 107 of GST Act is available. Court emphasized statutory appeal mechanism and declined extraordinary writ jurisdiction, directing petitioner to pursue prescribed legal remedy as per established judicial precedent.

---

---

Issues involved: Availability of alternative remedy under Section 107 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act) and maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking various reliefs, including quashing an Impugned Order dated 19.12.2023, revising periodical GST Returns, allowing revised manual GST returns with negative figures, staying the operation of the Impugned Order, and seeking further appropriate relief. The respondent raised a preliminary objection stating that the Impugned Order is appealable under Section 107 of the GST Act.

The Counsel for the respondents argued that similar writ petitions have been dismissed previously by the Court due to the availability of an alternative remedy. The petitioner cited the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai (1998) 8 SCC 1 to support the argument that alternative remedy is not a bar in certain circumstances, such as enforcement of Fundamental Rights or violation of natural justice.

The respondents' Counsel contended that the original order was passed by a competent authority after providing a hearing opportunity and considering the petitioner's reply, making the writ petition maintainable. Referring to legal precedents like Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Private Limited vs. Union of India and others (2014) 15 SCC 44, the respondents argued that statutory appeal should be availed when provided by the statute.

Based on the arguments presented and considering the availability of an alternative remedy, the Court decided not to entertain the petition, allowing the petitioner to pursue the alternative remedy as advised by law. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

---