VINOD KUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER UTTARAKHAND STATE GST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this intra-court appeal, the appellant, being a mason / painting professional, having GST Registration in the State of Uttarakhand has assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1553 of 2021, on dtd. 30/9/2021, on the ground that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that there is an alternative and efficacious remedy available to the petitioner/appellant under Sec. 107 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Uttarakhand Act', for brevity).

(2.) The facts of the case, leading to filing of this Special Appeal, are that the petitioner/appellant is working as a mason / painting professional. He had applied for GST registration, and was allotted GST Registration No. GSTIN 05AGMPK8182B3ZC. It is apparent from the records that the petitioner/appellant failed to file his return for a continuous period of six months, which was mandatory under the Uttarakhand Act. Hence, his registration was cancelled on 21/9/2019. He preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, but the same was dismissed on the ground of delay. Thereafter, the petitioner/appellant filed a writ petition before the Court, as stated above, which was also dismissed as not maintainable.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant would argue that high prerogative writs belong to the absolute discretion of the High Court, and even in cases where alternative and efficacious remedy is available, then also in appropriate cases the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction. We take note of the oft quoted and celebrated judgment of Whirlpool Corporation Vs Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 Supreme Court Cases 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even if there is an alternative, efficacious remedy, a writ petition can be entertained, if the writ petition filed by the petitioner is for enforcement of fundamental rights; when the vires of an Act is challenged; where there has been a violation of principles of natural justice; and where the order or the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction.