Allahabad HC dismisses GST writ petition under Section 107, cites available statutory remedy over direct challenge

The Allahabad HC dismissed a writ petition challenging orders under the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, citing availability of statutory remedy under Section 107. The court exercised discretionary jurisdiction, noting that effective alternate remedy through appeal was available to the petitioner. Following the Supreme Court precedent in Magadh Sugar Energy Ltd. v. State of Bihar, the HC declined to entertain the petition despite alleged natural justice violations. The court granted three weeks for filing appeal before the appellate authority, directing sympathetic consideration of limitation issues. The dismissal was solely based on availability of statutory remedy, without examining merits.

---

---

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.

---