TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 468
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent No.2 and Shri Saurabh Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.1, who has filed his memo of appearance, which is taken on record. 2. At the very outset, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the aforesaid petition on the ground of availability of statutory remedy as provided under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid statutory remedy, the petitioner can very well avail the remedy of appeal and in the light thereof, the petition is not maintainable. 3. Refuting the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the impugned orders are patently illegal and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is Act or the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017) by an adjudicating authority may appeal to such Appellate Authority as may be prescribed within three months from the date on which the said decision or order is communicated to such person." 7. It would indicate that there is a clear stipulation that any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under the Act or the Central Goods and Services Tax Act by an adjudicating authority can be challenged in an appeal. 8. Shri Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the fact that the remedy of the appeal is available in law and though he has ably argued that despite the availability of alternative remedy, but where the orders are passed, which are pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aggrieved person; (iii) Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged; (iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law; (v) When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc. the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute. 44. While expressing the aforesaid view, we are conscious that the powers conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc., the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. It has been held that, though the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution are of widest amplitude, still the Courts cannot be oblivious of the rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by this Court. The Court further held that though the rule of exhaustion of al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case [AIR 1964 SC 1419], Titaghur Paper Mills case [Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433 : 1983 SCC (Tax) 131] and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation." 29. It could thus ....