TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>GST Section 73(1) order challenge dismissed as appellate remedy under Section 107 available instead</h1> <h3>Canara Bank Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Commissioner Head Office, Commericial Tax-GST Department, Assistant Commissioner of State Tax Circle-3, Raipur</h3> Canara Bank Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Commissioner Head Office, Commericial Tax-GST Department, Assistant Commissioner of State Tax Circle-3, Raipur - ... Issues Involved:The issues involved in this judgment include the requirement of notice before passing an order under Section 73(1) of the GST Act, the appealability of the impugned order under Section 107 of the GST Act, and the availability of alternative statutory remedies for challenging the order.Notice Requirement Issue:The petitioner sought relief based on the lack of proper service of notice before the impugned order was passed under the GST Act. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued through an email that the petitioner could not access due to a bank merger, leading to a violation of the mandate in the GST Act regarding notice service. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment of the High Court to support this argument.Appealability Issue:The State, represented by its counsel, contended that the impugned order passed under Section 73(1) of the GST Act is appealable under Section 107 of the GST Act. The counsel emphasized that there is an efficacious alternative statutory remedy available to the petitioner through the appellate authority, where all grounds of dispute can be raised. The counsel argued that factual disputes, such as the nonservice of notice, should be addressed through the statutory appeal process rather than in the writ jurisdiction.Alternative Statutory Remedy Issue:The judgment referred to established legal principles that when an alternative statutory remedy is available, the writ court should generally not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Citing previous Supreme Court decisions, the judgment highlighted the importance of exhausting remedies available under relevant statutes before seeking relief through writ petitions. The judgment emphasized the need for adherence to the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedies, especially in cases involving recovery of public dues or taxes.Conclusion:Based on the arguments presented and legal principles cited, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner should avail the remedy available under the law, which in this case involves challenging the impugned order through the statutory appeal process. The judgment underscored the importance of following established procedures and exhausting alternative remedies before seeking relief through writ petitions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
