Case Law Details
Case Name : Anand Madhavan Nair Indiradevi Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)
Appeal Number : WA No. 292 of 2024
Date of Judgement/Order : 20/03/2024
Related Assessment Year :
Anand Madhavan Nair Indiradevi Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)
Introduction: The Kerala High Court recently ruled on the case of Anand Madhavan Nair Indiradevi vs. State Tax Officer regarding a writ petition challenging an order under the CGST/SGST Act. The court’s decision highlights the limitation of writ petitions in adjudicating disputed facts and emphasizes the need for statutory remedies.
Detailed Analysis: The appellant, a registered assessee under the CGST/SGST Act, filed a writ petition contesting an order issued by the State Tax Officer. The court noted that the appellant had been provided with due process, including a show cause notice and an opportunity to respond. However, the appellant sought to challenge the order on its merits in the writ petition.
The High Court reiterated the principle that writ petitions are not forums for adjudicating disputed facts. Instead, it emphasized that statutory remedies, such as appeals under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act, are available for such disputes. The court upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge, stating that the remedy for the appellant lies in the statutory appeal process.
The judgment underscores the importance of following established legal procedures and utilizing appropriate forums for dispute resolution. It clarifies that writ petitions are not meant to substitute statutory appeal processes and cannot be used to adjudicate factual disputes.
Conclusion: In dismissing the writ petition, the Kerala High Court reaffirmed the principle that disputed facts cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition. The ruling underscores the significance of adhering to statutory remedies and utilizing the appropriate legal mechanisms for resolving disputes under the CGST/SGST Act. This decision serves as a reminder of the procedural limitations of writ petitions and the importance of following established legal procedures in seeking redressal.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
This writ appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.1503/2024 dated 9th February 2024.
2. The appellant is a registered assessee under the provisions of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, on the rolls of the 1st He is engaged in the supply of telecommunication and courier services.
3. The appellant filed the writ petition challenging Ext.P5 order passed under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act. The learned Single Judge disposed the writ petition, relegating the appellant to the statutory remedy of appeal. It is challenging the said judgment; the appellant is before us.
4. We have heard Sri. Harisankar V. Menon, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. V. K. Shamsudheen, the learned Senior Government Pleader.
The 1st respondent issued Ext.P3 show cause notice to the appellant, and the appellant gave Ext.P4 reply before passing Ext.P5 order. Ext.P5 order was passed considering the contentions in Ext.P4 reply. There is no violation of the principles of natural justice. The appellant challenges Ext.P5 on merits. The disputed facts cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge, the remedy open to the appellant is to prefer appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/ SGST Act. We find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed.