Case Law Details
Sodhani Sweets Private Limited Vs Joint Commissioner (Rajasthan High Court)
In a recent decision, the Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Sodhani Sweets Private Limited challenging the imposition of 18% GST on popular Indian snacks like samosa and kachori. The court directed the petitioner to approach the First Appellate Authority instead, emphasizing the need to exhaust alternative legal remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction.
Background of the Case
Sodhani Sweets Private Limited, a well-known sweet shop in Rajasthan, filed a writ petition against the order dated December 29, 2023, which imposed an 18% GST rate on samosa and kachori. The petitioner argued that the rate was exorbitant and unjustified, especially given that these items are affordable snacks consumed widely across India. They contended that the GST rate was contrary to the decisions of the GST Council, making the order beyond the jurisdiction of the assessing authority.
Preliminary Objection by Respondents
The respondents, represented by the Joint Commissioner, raised a preliminary objection to the writ petition, arguing that Sodhani Sweets should have first approached the First Appellate Authority as per the GST Act. They pointed out that the petitioner had a clear and adequate remedy available under the law, with a minimal filing fee of Rs. 3,20,000/-. Additionally, they cited a Supreme Court judgment in the Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. case, which set a precedent that writ petitions should not be entertained when an alternative remedy exists unless certain exceptional conditions are met.
Court’s Ruling
The Rajasthan High Court, after considering the arguments, upheld the preliminary objection and dismissed the writ petition. The court noted that the petitioner had an appropriate forum in the First Appellate Authority to raise their objections regarding the GST rate. The court also referenced a previous judgment by the same High Court in Tanushree Logistics Private Limited Vs State of Rajasthan, which reinforced the principle that writ jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly and only when no other legal remedy is available.
The court further clarified that the period during which the writ petition was pending would not be counted towards the limitation period for filing an appeal. The Appellate Authority was directed to expedite the hearing and decision of the appeal in accordance with the law.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition aggrieved by order dated 29.12.2023.
2. A preliminary objection was raised by learned counsel for the respondents that the order can be challenged before First Appellate Authority and if the order stands, the petitioner has further remedy of filing appeal before the Second Appellate Authority. It is also contended that fees payable for filing an appeal before the First Appellate Authority is just Rs.3,20,000/- and it cannot be said that rights of the petitioner are being taken away. It is also contended that the writ petition is not covered under the clauses laid down by the Apex Court in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Versus Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and Others: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 95. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgment of this High Court in the case of Tanushree Logistics Private Limited Versus State of Rajasthan & Others: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17550/2022 and batch of writ petitions.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that samosa and kachori have been taxed @ 18%. The said order passed by the Authority is beyond its jurisdiction and against the orders passed by the GST Council.
4. We have considered the contentions.
5. Be that as it may, appropriate authority in the present case is the First Appellate Authority. We do not find it a fit case to entertain in the writ jurisdiction as whatever objection the petitioner is raising before this Court can be raised before the First Appellate Authority.
6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, leaving it open for the petitioner to avail alternative remedy of appeal. We further direct that the period during which this petition remained pending before this Court shall not be counted for the purpose of counting the period of limitation in filing appeal. In case an appeal is filed, the Appellate Authority is directed to decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law.
Author Bio
