M/S Aditya Steel Trading vs. Joint Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax And Central Excise Pune I Commissionerate And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The Petitioner, M/s. Aditya Steel Trading, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an Order-in-Original dated 26th August 2024 and multiple Summary of Orders in Form GST DRC-07 dated 30th August 2024. These orders pertained to financial years ranging from 2017-2018 to 2021-2022. The Petitioner sought to quash these orders and prohibit the respondents from taking coercive action. The Petitioner also prayed for a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity for cross-examination and personal hearing. The respondents were the Joint Commissioner, CGST and CE, Pune-I Commissionerate, and others.
Held
The Court held that it was not inclined to entertain the writ petition filed by the Petitioner. The primary reason for this decision was the existence of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal available to the Petitioner before the Commissioner. The Court acknowledged the Petitioner's prayer for cross-examination and personal hearing but did not delve into the merits of these claims, as the procedural bar of alternative remedy was deemed sufficient. The Court's ratio decidendi is that writ petitions should generally not be entertained when a clear and efficacious alternative remedy exists, unless there are exceptional circumstances not present or argued in this case. The Petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Appellate Authority and raise all contentions. The Court further directed that if an appeal is filed within three weeks, it should be decided without objection as to limitation, recognizing the Petitioner's bona fide pursuit of the writ proceedings.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner under the GST law? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, implying a challenge to the procedural fairness and legality of the orders, potentially justifying writ intervention. They specifically prayed for cross-examination and personal hearing, suggesting a denial of natural justice. Respondents' Contention: The respondents implicitly relied on the availability of the statutory appeal mechanism. The Court's decision suggests that the respondents did not argue for the dismissal of the writ on merits but rather on the procedural ground of alternative remedy. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondents regarding the merits of the impugned orders.
Sections Cited
Article 226
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
11-WP-353-2025.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURI ICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 353 OF 2025 M/s. Aditya Steel Trading ...Petitioner Versus Joint Commissioner, CGST and CE, Pune-I Commissionerate & Ors. ...Respondents _________ Mr. Sanket Bora a/w Vidhi Punmiya and Amiya Das i/b SPCM Legal for Petitioner. Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra a/w Mamta Omle, Ashutosh Mishra and Rupesh Dubey for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. __________ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ. DATE: 01 APRIL 2026 P.C.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying for the following reliefs: "a. To issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, calling for the records of the Petitioner's case and after going into the legality and propriety thereof, to quash and set aside the impugned Order-in-Original dated 26th August 2024 and multiple impugned Summary of Orders vide Form GST DRC-07 dated 30th August, 2024 for various Financial years ranging from FY 2017-2018 to FY 2021-2022 (Exh W-Colly to the Petitioner) in pursuance thereof and/or, b. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Prohibition or a writ in the nature of Prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prohibiting Respondents from taking any steps or coercive action in furtherance of the impugned Order-in-Original dated 26th August 2024 and the multiple impugned Summary of Orders vide Form GST DRC-07 dated 30th August, 2024 for various Financial years ranging from FY 2017-2018 to FY 2021-2022 (Exh W Colly to the Petitioner), issued in pursuance thereof and/or; c. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the Respondent No. 1 and 2 to provide reasonable opportunity of cross-examination to the Petitioner and 01 April 2026 Kiran Kawre KAWRE KIRAN KALYAN KAWRE KIRAN KALYAN Date: 2026.04.04 12:16:00 +0530
11-WP-353-2025.DOC personal hearing in accordance with law;"
Admittedly, the remedy of filing an appeal before the Commissioner is available to the petitioner. Accordingly, we are not inclined to entertain the present petition, however, keeping open the remedy of the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority to raise all contentions as urged in the present proceedings.
Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
In the event that the appeal is filed within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be decided without an objection as to limitation on the ground that the petitioner was bona fide pursuing the present proceedings. (AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) 01 April 2026 Kiran Kawre
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.