M/S Jai Shree Radhey Shyam Enterprises vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors. - Delhi High Court, 27 July 2026

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

$~80 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9581/2026 and CM APPL. 44649/2026 M/S JAI SHREE RADHEY SHYAM ENTERPRISES .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nem Chand Jain, AR of the Petitioner, in person. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Saurabh Kansal, Senior Panel Counsel for UOI along with Mr. Manish Kumar, Mr. Suraj Kumar Jha, Mr. Raghav Vij, Ms. Sakshi Tiwari, Mr. Mehul Prasad, Mr. Pratham Malik, Ms. Ritul Sharma and Ms. Vanshika Kapoor, Advs. for R-1/UOI. Mr. Shashank Sharma, SSC with Ms. Malika Kumari, Adv. for R-3 and R-4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

O R D E R %

27.07.

2026

Through the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner assails the correctness of the order dated 27.03.2026 [‘Impugned Order’] passed by Respondent No.4 under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [‘CGST Act’], whereby tax, interest and penalty have been confirmed against the Petitioner.

The Petitioner, who appears in person, submits that the challenge in the present Writ Petition is not directed merely against 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 30/07/2026 at 15:36:39

the conclusions recorded in the Impugned Order but against the decision-making process culminating therein.

It is not in dispute that an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act is maintainable against the Impugned Order. The Appellate Authority is competent to examine the correctness, legality and propriety of the Impugned Order and to consider all questions of fact and law arising therefrom, including the Petitioner's contention that the adjudicating authority has failed to appreciate the material placed on record or has not passed a reasoned order.

It is well settled that the extraordinary juri iction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is ordinarily not exercised against an order of adjudication where an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal is available, save in rare and exceptional cases, such as where the order is passed without juri iction, in violation of the principles of natural justice or where other exceptional circumstances warrant interference. Reliance in this regard may be placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. v. Commercial Steel Ltd., (2022) 16 SCC 447. 5. In view of the availability of an efficacious statutory remedy, this Court does not deem it appropriate to entertain the present Writ Petition at this stage.

Accordingly, the present Writ Petition, along with the pending application(s), is disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to avail the statutory remedy available under Section 107 of the CGST Act in accordance with law.

It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions and all rights and contentions of the parties are left open to be urged before the Appellate Authority, which 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 30/07/2026 at 15:36:39

shall consider the same independently and in accordance with law.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

SHAIL JAIN, J. JULY 27, 2026/sp/pal 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 30/07/2026 at 15:36:39