M/S. Danish Industries vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court noted that Section 107(1) allows any person aggrieved by a decision or order passed by an adjudicating authority to appeal to the prescribed Appellate Authority within three months of communication. The writ petition was filed on 13.02.2026, which was after the impugned order dated 14.10.2025, and the Court observed that the statutory period for appeal, including condonation of delay, was available. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to directly entertain the writ petition without the petitioner exhausting its alternate statutory remedy. The Court dismissed the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to raise all legal and factual grounds before the appellate authority. Additionally, the Court directed that the time taken by the petitioner in pursuing the writ petition before the High Court shall be excluded by the Appellate Authority while calculating the limitation period for entertaining the appeal, provided the appeal is filed within 30 days of the instant order being uploaded.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Danish Industries, filed a writ petition challenging an order in original dated 14.10.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Ward-II, Circle-Bundi (Respondent No. 4). This order confirmed a demand for recovery of short-paid tax amounting to Rs. 6,25,530/-, along with equal penalty and consequential interest, as proposed in a show cause cum demand notice dated 25.08.2025 issued under Section 74(9) of the CGST Act, 2017. The writ petition was filed on 13.02.2026. The respondents 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? Petitioner's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the petitioner regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. The petitioner's action of filing the writ petition implies a belief that the alternative remedy was either unavailable or inadequate, or that exceptional circumstances warranted direct High Court intervention. Revenue's Arguments: The respondents argued that the writ petition is not maintainable because the petitioner has not availed the alternative remedy of appeal provided under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, against the impugned order.