Bharat Timber Works vs. Union Of INDIA And Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Bharat Timber Works, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The respondents included the Union of India and others. The petitioner faced an objection regarding the exhaustion of statutory remedies. The petitioner's counsel sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal. The Court granted this liberty, noting that the period spent by the petitioner in pursuing the writ petition would be excluded for computing the limitation period for filing the appeal. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory alternative remedy. However, faced with this objection, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to pursue their right of appeal under the Statute. The Court allowed this request. The reasoning was that the petitioner, having approached the High Court, should not be prejudiced by the time spent. Therefore, the period spent by the petitioner in pursuing the writ petition before this Court shall stand excluded for the purpose of computing the statutory limitation period for filing the appeal. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner has exhausted the statutory alternative remedy available under the GST law, as contended by the respondents. 2. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to withdraw the writ petition and pursue the statutory appeal, considering the objection raised by the respondents. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that they should be allowed to withdraw the writ petition and pursue their statutory appeal. They relied on the principle that a petitioner should not be debarred from pursuing a statutory remedy if they have approached the High Court in writ jurisdiction. Revenue/State's Contention: The respondents contended that the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory alternative remedy available to them. They implicitly argued that the writ petition was premature or not maintainable in light of the available appeal mechanism.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
115
I Bharat Timber Union of India
CORAM: H
H
Present: M
(
f M M M
M M
ASHWANI K
A respondents th learned couns petition with l
D period spent b shall stand exc the statutory a 3. All pen
2026 rajesh 1 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIG
CWP-9 HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROH Mr. Lakshit Chaudhary, Advocate (through video conferencing) for Mr. Govind Arora, Advocate f Mr. Sourabh Goel, Sr. Standing C Ms. Drishti Saraf, Advocate for th Mr. Gurinderjit Singh, Sr. Standin Ms. Chetna Thakur, Advocate for Mr. Sarthak Gupta, Advocate for t
*** KUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J. (Oral After some arguments in the matte hat the petitioner has not exhaus sel for the petitioner comes up iberty to pursue his right of appea Dismissed as withdrawn with the by the petitioner in pursuing the p cluded for the purpose of comput appeal. ding miscellaneous application(s)
(ASH
A
Whether speaking/reasoned?
Whether reportable?
JAB AND HARYANA GARH
9412-2026 (O&M) f Decision: 20.08.2026
…Petitioner
…Respondents EF JUSTICE HIT KAPOOR e
for the petitioner. ounsel, he respondents – UOI. ng Counsel with CBIC/GST. the respondent No.4. l) er and faced with the objection of sted the statutory alternative rem with a prayer to withdraw the al under the Statute. e liberty as prayed for. However, present writ petition before this C ting the period of limitation for fi ), if any, shall also stand disposed HWANI KUMAR MISHRA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (ROHIT KAPOOR) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No f the medy, writ , the Court filing d of. RAJESH KUMAR 2026.08.21 11:28 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.