Telangana High Court
Sri Lakshmi Ganapathi Agencies vs The State Of Telangana on 20 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.30418 of 2024
ORDER:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Sujoy Paul) Sri D.Kaval Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, for respondents.
2. The challenge is mounted in this petition to the order dated 30.04.2024 (Annexure P.1) passed under Section 73 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The order is appealable under the said Acts. In the impugned order itself, it is mentioned that the petitioner was put to notice on 31.01.2024 and three reminders were issued to file objections. Despite repeated query, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any pleadings from the petition, wherein the petitioner has attacked said finding about providing opportunities to the petitioner. In the absence thereof, no case is made out for interference. Even otherwise, the flaw of procedural nature can be raised in appeal and the appellate authority is best suited to examine the same. Recently, the Supreme Court in its recent judgment dated 10.04.2024 in PHR 2 Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank and Others 1 disapproved the order of Telangana High Court in W.P.No.5275 of 2021, dated 04.02.2022, wherein a Division Bench of this Court entertained a Writ Petition despite availability of alternative remedy. The Supreme Court opined that merely because a petition is maintainable, it is not necessary to entertain a petition. It is the discretion of the Court to entertain a petition and not a compulsion. The relevant paragraph reads as under:
"15. It could thus be seen that, this Court has clearly held that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person. It has been held that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. The Court clearly observed that, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc., the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. It has been held that, though the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution are of widest amplitude, still the Courts cannot be oblivious of the rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by this Court. The Court further held that though the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, still it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution."
(Emphasis Supplied) 1 (2024) 4 S.C.R. 541 3
3. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to interference with this petition. The petitioner may avail the statutory remedy of appeal. If appeal is preferred within fifteen days from today, the competent appellate authority shall decide it on merits and shall not dismiss it on the ground of delay.
4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of without expressing any view on the merits of the case.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_______________________ JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL _______________________________________ JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO Date: 20.11.2024 nvl/ns