M/S Anshika Glass Zone Through Its Prop. Sumit Tuteja vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The Petitioner, M/s Anshika Glass Zone, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a final order of adjustment. The Petitioner argued that the appeals against this order were being heard by designated authorities. However, the Court noted that the impugned order was not passed by a designated appellate authority. The Petitioner did not press any challenge to a Notification under Section 168A of the CGST Act dated December 28, 2023.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as the Petitioner had a statutory alternative remedy of preferring an appeal against the final order of adjustment. The Court found no merit or justification to entertain the writ petition, especially since the impugned order was not passed by a designated appellate authority. The Court's reasoning was based on the established principle that writ jurisdiction is an extraordinary remedy and should not be invoked when effective alternative remedies are available. The Petitioner's right to pursue statutory remedies was preserved. The challenge to the Notification under Section 168A of the CGST Act was expressly left open to be addressed in appropriate proceedings.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when the petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned order of adjustment, as contemplated under Section 5 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner contended that the appeals against the order of adjustment were presently being heard and examined by duly identified authorities discharging adjudicatory functions. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue (Union of India & Ors.) implicitly argued for the dismissal of the writ petition on the grounds of availability of an alternative statutory remedy. The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the Revenue beyond their appearance.
Sections Cited
Section 5, Section 168A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2024
Undisputedly, against the final order of adjustment which is sought to be impugned, the petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy of preferring an appeal.
Learned counsel for the writ petitioner would, however, contend that the appeals are presently being heard and examined by authorities, duly identified in an order dated 9 August 2024 and which are also discharging adjudicatory functions.
Undisputedly, the order impugned before us has not been passed by a designated appellate authority and which may have perhaps required us to examine the question which is sought to be 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 03/07/2025 at 20:39:04
raised in light of Section 5 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [“CGST Act”].
In view of the aforesaid, we find no merit or justification to entertain the writ petition which shall, accordingly, stand dismissed.
This order, however, shall be without prejudice to the right of the writ petitioner to institute and pursue appropriate statutory remedies.
We note that the petitioner has not pressed any challenge to the Notification under Section 168A of the CGST Act dated 28 December 2023. That is, consequently, left open to be addressed in appropriate proceedings.
YASHWANT VARMA, J
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J SEPTEMBER 27, 2024/sv
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 03/07/2025 at 20:39:04
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.