Case Law Details
Paarabhu Dayal Jajoo Vs Deputy Commissioner (Calcutta High Court)
In the case of Paarabhu Dayal Jajoo vs Deputy Commissioner, the Calcutta High Court addressed the importance of alternative remedies under the WBGST Act, 2017. This ruling sheds light on the adherence to proper procedural steps before resorting to writ petitions, emphasising the value of available appeal routes under the Act and the necessity to uphold natural justice principles.
In the given case, the petitioner challenged an appealable order issued under Section 74 of the WBGST Act, 2017, on grounds of a violation of the principle of natural justice, alleging that no opportunity for personal hearing was provided. Notably, the writ petition was filed more than a year after the order was passed, and without seeking recourse to appeal against the order.
The High Court observed the petitioner’s conduct, including the lack of response to a show-cause notice and not filing an appeal within the prescribed period. The court highlighted the availability of an alternative remedy by way of appeal under the GST Act, indicating the petitioner’s deviation from the appropriate legal process.
The ruling of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Paarabhu Dayal Jajoo vs Deputy Commissioner emphasises the importance of adhering to established procedures and utilising alternative remedies under the GST Act before turning to writ petitions.
Calcutta High Court held that In view of availability of alternative remedy by way of appeal and the conduct of the petitioner writ petition is dismissed. However, dismissal of this writ petition will not prevent the petitioner to avail any remedy, if it is available under the law.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Affidavit-of-service filed in court be kept with the record.
Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 11th March, 2022, under Section 74 of the WBGST Act, 2017, by filing this writ petition on 13th April, 2023 i.e. almost expiry of more than a year. First of all, the impugned order is an appealable order and without taking recourse to the same and deliberately allowing to expire the time to file the appeal against the impugned order, petitioner has filed this writ petition on the alleged ground of violation of principle of natural justice by contending that no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner.
Mr. Siddiqui, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the WBGST Authority submits that this court should not interfere with the aforesaid impugned order on the ground of availability of alternative remedy by way of statutory appeal and in view of the conduct of the petitioner in approaching this court after expiry of the period of filing the appeal and in view of the conduct of the petitioner by not giving any reply to the show-cause-notice and also by not giving any response to the intimation prior to the issuance of show-cause-notice.
In view of availability of alternative remedy by way of appeal and the conduct of the petitioner as recorded hereinabove, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition being WPA 9174 of 2023 and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
However, dismissal of this writ petition will not prevent the petitioner to avail any remedy, if it is available under the law.
