Case Law Details
Emmanuval Rubber Traders Mavudi Vs Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Kerala High Court)
The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an appellate order passed under the CGST/SGST Acts, 2017, holding that the petitioner had an effective statutory remedy of a second appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act. The petitioner had initially challenged an assessment order passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act before the first appellate authority, which partly rejected the petitioner’s contentions. Instead of filing a second appeal, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction, contending that the appellate order was cryptic and lacked discussion on all the issues raised. The High Court held that the existence of an alternative statutory remedy barred interference in writ jurisdiction and that the petitioner’s grievances regarding the appellate order could be urged before the appellate forum. The Court found no exceptional circumstance warranting exercise of its writ jurisdiction merely on the allegation that the appellate order was cryptic. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to invoke the statutory remedy under Section 112 of the CGST Act. Recovery proceedings pursuant to the original and appellate orders were directed to remain in abeyance for one month to enable the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The petitioner, a registered taxpayer under the provisions of the CGST/SGST Acts, 2017, has approached this Court, being aggrieved by Ext.P8 appellate order passed by the 1st respondent. Earlier, the petitioner, being aggrieved by Ext.P1 order passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, filed appeal and the said proceedings culminated in Ext.P8 order, partly rejecting the contentions of the petitioner. The challenge is raised by the petitioner by way of this writ petition, instead of availing the statutory remedy of a second appeal as contemplated under Section 112 of the CGST Act, is on the ground that the said order according to the petitioner, is very cryptic and does not contain any discussion with respect to all the contentions raised by the petitioner.
2. After considering all the relevant aspects and hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that, since the petitioner has an alternate remedy of appeal, this writ petition need not be entertained. As far as the contentions raised by the petitioner are concerned, the same can be raised before the appellate authority, and I do not find them to be reasons to entertain a writ petition against Ext.P8 order, when a statutory remedy is available.
In such circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to invoke the statutory remedies. However, since the petitioner seeks a reasonable time to invoke the statutory remedies, it is ordered that the recovery proceedings pursuant to Exts.P1 and P8 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month, to enable the petitioner to avail the said remedies.
Author Bio
