Shankar Dutt Chandola and Another Vs State of Uttarakhand and Others (Uttarakhand High Court)
The Uttarakhand High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Shankar Dutt Chandola and another petitioner who sought a waiver of GST and a directive to prevent the deduction of TDS from their pending dues. The petitioners’ plea was based on their interpretation of Section 22 and Section 51(1)(d) of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017.
The court, after hearing arguments from both sides, determined that the reliefs requested by the petitioners were based on specific factual inquiries. The court’s judgment noted that resolving the matter would require an investigation into the petitioners’ business turnovers, business modules, and whether they were legally required to be registered under the GST Act.
The court stated that an inquiry of this nature, which involves the appreciation of facts and statements, falls outside the scope of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court concluded that a writ petition is not the appropriate legal avenue for such a matter.
With this, the court dismissed the petition as “misconceived.” The judgment clarified that while the court was not granting the reliefs sought, it was not closing the door for the petitioners. The court granted the petitioners the liberty to approach the competent authority to seek the same reliefs they had requested from the court. No order was made as to costs. The ruling underscores the principle that Article 226 is not meant for disputes that require a detailed factual inquiry, which are better suited for lower courts or specialized tribunals that have the necessary mechanisms for evidence collection and fact-finding.
