Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the writ petition should be entertained when the petitioner had an alternative statutory appeal remedy before the Appellate Tribunal, and whether the amount deposited in the Court Registry should be released to enable the petitioner to pursue that remedy.
Analysis: The impugned order was under challenge, but the statutory appellate remedy under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017 was available before the Appellate Tribunal, which was stated to be functional. In view of that alternate and efficacious remedy, the petition was not pursued on merits. Since the petitioner had already deposited the demanded amount in the Court Registry and would be required to deposit the statutory amount before the Tribunal, release of the deposited amount was considered appropriate.
Conclusion: The petition was disposed of by directing the petitioner to avail the statutory appeal remedy and by ordering release of the deposited amount with accrued interest, if any.
Final Conclusion: The challenge was not adjudicated on merits, and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate forum with consequential refund of the deposited sum.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an effective statutory appellate remedy is available, the writ remedy need not be entertained, and ancillary relief may be granted to facilitate pursuit of that statutory remedy.