Deepak Goyal S/O Sh. Satyanarayan Goyal vs. The Joint Commissioner

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable in the present form. The primary reason for this decision was the existence of an alternative statutory remedy for the petitioner under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court noted that the petitioner had the right to appeal to the Appellate Authority against the order passed by the adjudicating authority within the prescribed time. The Court acknowledged that the writ petition was filed within the time frame stipulated by Section 107, including the potential for delay condonation. However, it emphasized that the petitioner must first exhaust this statutory remedy before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court dismissed the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to raise all legal and factual grounds before the appellate authority. As a measure of relief, the Court directed that the time spent by the petitioner in pursuing the writ petition before the High Court would be excluded by the Appellate Authority when calculating the limitation period for filing the appeal, provided the appeal was filed within 30 days from the date of this order.

Facts

The petitioner, Deepak Goyal, Director of M/s Mainawat Package Industry Pvt. Ltd., challenged an order dated 27.03.2026 passed by the Joint Commissioner CGST, Jaipur. This order raised a GST demand of Rs. 3,99,23,139/- for the financial years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020. The demand was based on the alleged wrongful availment and utilization of Input Tax Credit (ITC) by the petitioner. The writ petition was filed on 25.06.2026. The respondents, including the Joint Commissioner CGST and the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, objected to the maintainability of the writ petition, citing the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, is available to the petitioner? The petitioner's side argued that the writ petition was filed within the stipulated time, considering the provision for condoning delays up to 120 days under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. They contended that the writ petition was a valid recourse. The respondents argued that the petitioner had not availed the alternative remedy of appeal provided under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, before the Appellate Authority against the impugned order, and therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable.