Matrix Engineering And Services vs. The Additional/Joint Commissioner CGST Kolhapur Commissionerate And Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Matrix Engineering and Services, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Kolhapur. The respondents were the Additional/Joint Commissioner, CGST, Kolhapur, and others. The writ petition challenged an order or action passed by the revenue authorities. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute were not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history leading to the writ petition was not detailed, other than the fact that the matter was argued at length on merits.
Held
The Court held that it was not inclined to entertain the writ petition on merits because the petitioner possessed an alternate efficacious remedy under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Consequently, the Court granted the petitioner's request to withdraw the petition. The liberty was granted to approach the appellate authority and to raise the issue of jurisdiction in the appeal. The Court did not decide the merits of the case or the specific issue of jurisdiction, as the petition was disposed of as withdrawn.
Key Issues
The primary issue was whether the High Court should entertain the writ petition, given the existence of an alternate efficacious remedy under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that they should be permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the appellate authority and to raise the issue of jurisdiction before that authority. The revenue or State did not record any specific arguments in opposition to the withdrawal, but their presence as respondents implies a defense against the writ petition's claims.
Sections Cited
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 905-WP-920-26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURI ICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 920 OF 2026 MATRIX ENGINEERING AND SERVICES VERSUS THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT COMMISSIONER, CGST, KOLHAPUR AND OTHERS ... Mr. Gautam Bharadwaj a/w Mr. Prashant Goudar a/w Ruturaj Kadam i/b Mr. Avadhut S. Patil, Advocate for Petitioner Mr. A. P. Vanarase, AGP for Respondent/State Mr. Vijay Killedar a/w Mr. Rahul Rote, Advocate for Respondents ... CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ. DATE : 25th FEBRUARY, 2026 PER COURT :
After arguing the matter at length on merits, when this Court was not inclined to entertain the petition as the petitioner has alternate efficacious remedy under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, learned advocate for petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the appellate authority. He further submits that he may be permitted to raise the issue of juri iction in the appeal.
Permission is granted. Writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. (AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) SVH
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.