BharatTaxGST

Jaslon Oversea vs. Principal Commissioner Of Goods And Service Tax GST

Original PDF →
W.P.(C)/1632/2026HC DelhiGSTCNR DLHC01004000202605 February 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE ,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL2 pages
For Petitioner: Mr. Deepanshu Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC, CBIC with Ms. Arya Suresh Nair, Ms. Shreya Lamba and Mr. Dhananjay Gautam and Mr. Akhil Sharma, Advocates
AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, Jaslon Oversea, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an Order-in-Original dated October 16, 2025, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax. The petitioner cited financial hardship as the reason for being unable to comply with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement for filing an appeal against the said order. The respondent was the Principal Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax.

Held

The Court held that financial hardship, while a genuine concern for the petitioner, cannot be a reason for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court noted that a statutory remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner against the Order-in-Original dated October 16, 2025. Therefore, the Court deemed it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the alternate remedy. The writ petition was disposed of by directing the petitioner to pursue the available appellate process. The Court did not decide on the merits of the Order-in-Original itself.

Key Issues

1. Whether financial hardship can be a valid ground for invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, bypassing the statutory appellate remedy? The petitioner argued that financial hardship prevented them from availing the statutory appeal mechanism due to the mandatory pre-deposit. The respondent did not appear to have made any specific arguments recorded in the judgment regarding the petitioner's plea of financial hardship or the maintainability of the writ petition on this ground. The court's decision primarily hinges on the availability of an alternate remedy.

Sections Cited

Article 226

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~41 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1632/2026 JASLON OVERSEA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Deepanshu Gupta, Advocate. versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF GOODS AND SERVICE TAX GST .....Respondent Through: Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC, CBIC with Ms. Arya Suresh Nair, Ms. Shreya Lamba and Mr. Dhananjay Gautam and Mr. Akhil Sharma, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL

O R D E R %

05.02.

2026 CM APPL. 7897/2026

1.

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2.

The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 1632/2026

3.

Admittedly, the remedy of appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 16th October, 2025 is already available to the petitioner.

4.

In this regard, the petitioner is citing the reason of financial hardship qua the mandatory pre-deposit.

5.

This cannot be a reason for taking recourse to the remedy provided under extraordinary juri iction under Article 226 of the Constitution This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/02/2026 at 13:04:58

of India.

6.

That being so, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the present petition by relegating the petitioner to the alternate remedy. NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J AJAY DIGPAUL, J FEBRUARY 5, 2026 ab/sk This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/02/2026 at 13:04:58

Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.