The Himachal Pradesh High Court has observed that a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.
In this case, M/s Radha Krishan Industries had approached the High Court by filing a writ petition challenging an order passed by GST Authorities provisionally attaching the payment receivable by it from a consumer. While conceding that there is alternative remedy available by way of appeal under section 107 of the GST Act, the petitioner contended that contend that the rule of exclusion of jurisdiction due to availability of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of the compulsions.
Answering this contention, the bench comprising Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Jyotsna Rewal Dua referred to a recent Supreme Court judgment in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others vs Glaxo Smit Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, AIR 2020 SC 2819 in which it was held that even though the High Court can entertain writ petition against any order or direction passed or action taken by State under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but it has not to do so as a matter of course when aggrieved person could have availed the effective alternative remedy in the manner prescribed by law. While dismissing the writ petition, the court observed:
"Where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the Act or in defiance the fundamental principles of judicial procedure or has resorted to invoke the provisions, which are repealed or where an order has been passed in total violation of the principle of natural justice, but the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if efficacious remedy is available to the aggrieved person or where the statute under which the action complained of has been taken in mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Meaning thereby, that when a statutory form is created by law for redressal of grievance, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. "
Case: M/s Radha Krishan Industries vs State of H.P. [CWP No. 5648 of 2020]Coram: Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Jyotsna Rewal DuaCounsel: Sr Adv Puneet Bali with Adv Jyotirmay Bhatt, Sr. Addl. A.G. Ajay Vaidya