Papyrus Paper Products Thro Proprietor Nikita Yadav vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Revenue Secretary Ministry And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The Petitioner, Papyrus Paper Products, through its Proprietor Nikita Yadav, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated May 22, 2025, and an order dated September 16, 2025, both issued under Section 74 of the GST Acts. The Petitioner sought to quash these notices and orders, alleging they were without jurisdiction and illegal. The primary dispute revolved around a change in the classification of goods. The Petitioner argued that the proceedings were without jurisdiction and illegal, while the Respondents, Union of India and others, did not present specific arguments in the judgment.
Held
The Court perused the show cause notice and the order and found that the challenge raised by the Petitioner, particularly concerning the change of classification, could be addressed through a statutory remedy. The Court held that a remedy of appeal was available to the Petitioner under the CGST Act, 2017, which could be availed to assert the challenge. Therefore, the Court did not delve into the merits of the Petitioner's jurisdictional or legality arguments. The Court's decision was based on the availability of an alternative statutory remedy. The ratio decidendi is that where a clear statutory remedy exists, a writ petition challenging an order that can be addressed through that remedy may not be entertained on merits, especially when the challenge pertains to issues like classification that are amenable to appeal.
Key Issues
1. Whether the show cause notice dated May 22, 2025, and the consequential order dated September 16, 2025, passed under Section 74 of the GST Acts, are without jurisdiction and illegal, as contended by the Petitioner? The Petitioner argued that the impugned show cause notice and order were wholly without jurisdiction and illegal. The Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari or mandamus to quash these documents. The Respondents, Union of India and others, did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding the Petitioner's contentions on jurisdiction or legality.
Sections Cited
Section 74
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 of 2 902.WP.320.2026.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURI ICTION WRIT PETITION NO.320 OF 2026 Papyrus Paper Products, through Proprietor Nikita Yadav Petitioner versus Union of India and others Respondents _______ Mr.Devendra H.Jain with Ms.Saukhya Lakade i/by Shashank Mehta for Petitioner. Mr.Karan Adhik with Ms.Niyati Hakani, Ms.Bhavana Ahire for Respondents. _______ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ. DATE: 27th March 2026 P.C.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying for the following substantive reliefs : “A) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing and setting aside impugned order dated 16/9/2025 (annexed at Exhibit M) and also SCN (Annexed at Exhibit G) dated 22/5/2025 passed under Section 74 of the GST Acts as being wholly without juri iction and illegal; B) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order quashing and setting aside impugned show cause notice dated 22/5/2025 (annexed at Exhibit G) and order in original dated 16-09-2025 (Annexed at Exhibit M) being wholly without juri iction, bad and illegal.”
The primary challenge in this petition is to the show cause notice dated 22nd May 2025 passed under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 on which an order dated 16th September 2025 has been passed. M.S.Thatte MANISH SURESHRAO THATTE MANISH SURESHRAO THATTE Date: 2026.03.27 18:57:55 +0530
2 of 2 902.WP.320.2026.DOC
We have perused the show cause notice and the order, and to our mind, the challenge in the present petition is in respect of change of classification, for which a remedy is available and the same can be availed by the Petitioner including on the challenge which it seeks to assert in the present petition.
The petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal as provided under the CGST Act, 2017. Let such an appeal be filed within a period of three weeks and the same be considered on its own merits, without raising an objection as to limitation for the reason that the Petitioner was bona fide pursuing the present petition.
All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.
Disposed of in the above terms. No costs. (AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) M.S.Thatte
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.