M/S Jns Enterprises vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s JNS Enterprises, through its proprietor Mrs. Rinkal Sharma, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur. The respondents include the Union of India, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, Chief Commissioner CGST Jaipur Zone, State of Rajasthan, Chief Commissioner Commercial Tax Department, and the Deputy Commissioner State Tax Department. The parties agreed that the issue in the present petition is identical to that adjudicated by this Court in the case of Eagle Trans Shipping and Logistics India Private Limited Vs. Union of India and Ors. on 22.08.2025. The earlier judgment dealt with a situation where petitioners had filed a reply to a show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, and adjudication had already occurred. The Court in that instance noted the availability of a statutory appeal remedy under Section 107 of the DGST Act, SGST Act, and CGST Act.

Held

The Court held that it would not interfere with the impugned orders on merits, considering that a statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioners under Section 107 of the DGST Act, SGST Act, and CGST Act. The Court noted that the petitioners had already filed a reply to the show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, and adjudication had taken place. Regarding the validity of notifications issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017, and the provisions of Section 168 itself, the Court observed that this was a subject matter of scrutiny before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.4240/2025. Consequently, the Court left it open to the petitioners to either make submissions before the Apex Court or wait for its final adjudication. The validity of the impugned order concerning Section 168A would be governed by the Supreme Court's decision. The Court's view was buttressed by a decision of the Delhi High Court. The Court accordingly disposed of the petitions, leaving it open to the petitioners to challenge the order on merit in appeal within one month, to be examined purely on merits without considering limitation. The ratio is that where a statutory appeal is available and a related issue is pending before the Supreme Court, the High Court will typically relegate the parties to their statutory remedy or await the Apex Court's decision, while preserving the right to appeal on merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should interfere with the impugned orders on merits, given that a statutory remedy of appeal is available under Section 107 of the DGST Act, SGST Act, and CGST Act? (Question of law and fact) 2. What is the impact of the ongoing scrutiny before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.4240/2025 regarding the validity of notifications issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017, and the provisions of Section 168 itself, on the impugned orders? (Question of law) Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner's arguments are not explicitly recorded in the provided text, but the Court's disposition implies the petitioner sought relief from the High Court. The Court's reference to the earlier judgment suggests the petitioner's case hinges on the same legal points. Revenue/State's Contention: Both counsels for the petitioner and respondents were ad idem that the issue stands adjudicated by the Court's previous order in Eagle Trans Shipping and Logistics India Private Limited. They agreed that the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the DGST Act, SGST Act, and CGST Act is available, and the Court should not interfere on merits. They also acknowledged the pending Supreme Court matter concerning Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017.