M/S Fsr Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA - Rajasthan High Court, 06 March 2025

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[2025:RJ-JP:10050-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2453/2025 M/s Fsr Travels Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Registered Office At 28, Yashwant Place, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi -21, Delhi, India And Having An Office At C-24, Pankaj Singhvi Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302015 Through Its Authorised Representative Mr. Siddarth Bhatia ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Chief Commissioner, Central Goods And Service Tax, Jaipur Zone, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, C Scheme, Jaipur- 302005 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Joint Secretary (Tax), Finance Department (Tax Division), Secretariat, Jaipur - 302001 3. Joint Commissioner, Circle-A, Enforcement Wing, Rajasthan-I, Jaipur At Kar Bhavan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Kothari For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.D. Rastogi, ASG assisted by Mr. Devesh Yadav and Mr. Rajat Sharma Mr. Kartikey Sharma on behalf of Mr. Sandeep Taneja, AAG HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

Order 06/03/2025

The argument that the petitioner is not liable to pay tax as his case is covered under heading ‘HSN Code 998552’ and not under heading ‘HSN Code 996311’, cannot be said to be a case where the authority has passed an order without juri iction. Essentially, this is a legal issue which will arise for consideration based upon consideration of various entries and the nature of

[2025:RJ-JP:10050-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-2453/2025] activity undertaken by the petitioner. This issue can very well be raised in the appeal, the alternative remedy available to the petitioner.

It is well-settled that the Writ Court in exercise of juri iction under Article 226 of the Constitution may not be inclined to entertain a petition except in very exceptional circumstances viz. total absence of juri iction, violation of principles of natural justice or mala fide.

The issue, which the petitioner is raising, does not pertain to any of the aforesaid grounds, therefore, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the case.

We find that earlier a writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging show cause notice. The petitioner did not choose to challenge the validity of the law. He was granted liberty to file fresh petition taking appropriate remedy against orders passed in the proceedings drawn after filing of the petition. When the adjudication order was passed, now this petition has been filed without taking the remedy available under the law. At this stage, the petitioner seeks to raise an alternative plea challenging the validity of Section 19(1) of IGST Act, Section 77(1) of CGST Act and RGST Act and Rule 89(1A) of CGST Rules and RGST Rules. That cannot be sustained.

Keeping it open for the petitioner, instant writ petition is dismissed with liberty to avail alternative remedy available under the law. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ Inder/Sudeepak/11