Mahindra And Mahindra Limited vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable. It relied on the Supreme Court's observations in M/s Trillion Lead Factory Private Limited and M/s Super Service Point, as well as its own coordinate bench's decisions in Punj Lloyd Ltd.- Varaha Infra Ltd. (JV) and Tanushree Logistics Private Ltd. The Court reasoned that since the petitioner had an efficacious alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, the writ petition should not be entertained. The Court found no violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner had participated in the adjudication process and the Order-in-Original was a speaking and reasoned one. The Court dismissed the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal. The period during which the writ petition remained pending before the High Court was directed to be excluded for the purpose of calculating the limitation period for filing the appeal, provided the appeal is filed within four weeks from the date of the order.

Facts

Mahindra and Mahindra Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court challenging an Order-in-Original dated 29.12.2025, which raised a GST demand of Rs. 2,14,84,454.25. The petition was filed without first availing the statutory remedy of appeal. The respondents, Union of India and the Additional Commissioner, CGST, raised an objection to the maintainability of the writ petition, citing previous judgments of the High Court and the Supreme Court which held that writ petitions are generally not maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy, such as an appeal, is available. The petitioner had participated in the adjudication process and raised objections before the Order-in-Original was passed.

Key Issues

1. Whether a writ petition is maintainable against an Order-in-Original under the GST Act when an efficacious alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available under Section 107 of the CGST Act? Petitioner's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the petitioner against the maintainability of the writ petition. It only notes that the petition was filed challenging the Order-in-Original. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents argued that the writ petition is not maintainable. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Trillion Lead Factory Private Limited and a coordinate bench's decision in Punj Lloyd Ltd.- Varaha Infra Ltd. (JV) vs. Union of India, which stated that a writ petition shall not lie against the issuance of a show cause notice and that writ petitions are generally not maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy exists, except in limited circumstances. They also referred to the case of Tanushree Logistics Private Ltd.