The main legal point established is that a writ petition can be maintainable even when an alternative remedy is available, especially in cases involving fundamental rights, vires of an Act, violation of natural justice, or lack of jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, J.

In this intra-court appeal, the appellant, being a mason/painting professional, having GST Registration in the State of Uttarakhand has assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1553 of 2021, on dated 30.09.2021, on the ground that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that there is an alternative and efficacious remedy available to the petitioner/appellant under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Uttarakhand Act’, for brevity).

2) The facts of the case, leading to filing of this Special Appeal, are that the petitioner/appellant is working as a mason/painting professional. He had applied for GST registration, and was allotted GST Registration No.GSTIN 05AGMPK8182B3ZC. It is apparent from the records that the petitioner/appellant failed to file his return for a continuous period of six months, which was mandatory under the Uttarakhand Act. Hence, his registration was cancelled on 21.09.2019. He preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, but the same was dismissed on the ground of delay. Thereafter, the petitioner/appellant filed a writ petition before the Court, as stated above, which was also dismissed as not maintainable.

3) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant would argue that high prerogative writs belong to the absolute discretion of the High Court, and even in cases where alternative and efficacious remedy is available, then also in appropriate cases the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction. We take note of the oft quoted and celebrated judgment of Whirlpool Corporation Vs Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 Supreme Court Cases 1, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even if there is an alternative, efficacious remedy, a writ petition can be entertained, if the writ petition filed by the petitioner is for enforcement of fundamental rights; when the vires of an Act is challenged; where there has been a violation of principles of natural justice; and where the order or the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction.

4) Thus it is apparent that the Statute does not provide any prohibition against exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by the High Court. The practice of not entertaining the writ petition, except in the cases accepted above by the Hon’ble High Court, in a case where an alternative and efficacious remedy is available, is an internal mechanism, which the Court has imposed upon themselves.

5) Moreover, this issue whether a writ petition is maintainable when the limitation provided for filing an appeal is not extendable, as in this case, was considered by the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Panoli Intermediate (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and others, 2016 0 AIR(Guj) 97, where the case was referred to the larger Bench for determining three questions. The third question is important for this case, which is quoted below:

(3) When if the statutory remedy or appeal under Section 35 is barred by the law of limitation whether in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the order passed by the original adjudicating authority could be challenged on merit?

6) The answer was given by the Hon’ble Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in paragraph 31 of the said judgment, especially, in sub-paragraph (3). The Full Bench of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that on the third question the answer is in affirmative, but with the clarification that –

A) The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be preferred for challenging the order passed by the original adjudicating authority in following circumstances that :

A.1) The authority has passed the order without jurisdiction and by assuming jurisdiction which there exist none

A.2) Has acted in flagrant disregard to law or rules or procedure or acted in violation of principles of natural