(1.) The order(s) of assessment made by the assessing authority, and, appertaining to GST levies, stand respectively embodied in Annexure(s) P-6 and P-7. However, the afore orders of assessment of GST, are, assailed through the instant petition.
(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the contesting litigants, it visibly appears that the recoursing by the writ petitioner, of, the extant remedy, is a gross mis-recoursing, as, Section 107 of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, purveys an alternative remedy to the writ petitioner, to, make an appeal thereunder, against, the afore orders of assessment.
(3.) The learned counsel for the writ petitioner, has not been able, to, convince this Court that the afore remedy is either not a befitting remedy, nor, is an efficacious remedy, as, he has not been able to make an argument, hence, falling within the exception, to, the jurisprudencial principle, embodying the canon qua upon availability of an alternative statutory remedy, vis-a-vis, the filing of the extant petition, the extant petition, is, still maintainable (a) exception whereof, is, comprised in palpable breaches being made by the assessing authority, vis-a-vis, the statutory provisions appertaining to the levy of GST, upon the petitioner firm, (b) whereupon alone the availability, of, the afore statutory remedy becomes both inefficacious, as well as, is not a befitting remedy. Consequently, the instant petition is not maintainable before this Court.