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
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)
(2024) 4 S.C.R. 541
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
