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> The Chhattisgarh HC dismissed a writ petition challenging an order under Section 73(1) of the GST Act. The court held that since the impugned order was ... Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - order passed under Section 73(1) of GST Act - appealable order or not - no proper service of notice - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the impugned order is issued under Section 73(1) of the GST Act and none of the parties are able to make any dispute that the such order is appealable under Section 107 of the GST Act. Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments has held that when there is alternative statutory remedy is available, the writ Court ordinarily should not entertain the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In case of UNITED BANK OF INDIA VERSUS SATYAWATI TONDON AND OTHERS [2010 (7) TMI 829 - SUPREME COURT] it was held that It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass interim order ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective alternative remedy by filing application, appeal, revision, etc. and the particular legislation contains a detailed mechanism for redressal of his grievance. In light of the above judgment this Court is not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition as petitioner is having alternative statutory remedy to challenge the impugned order in appeal. The question as to whether the petitioner was able to operate its e-mail may be determined by appellate authority. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to dismissed. There are no reasons to entertain this writ petition, hence, this petition is dismissed. 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 
