Raamkay Crop Science Solutions PVT. LTD. vs. State Of Maharashtra Thr Prin. Secretary, Ministry Of Finance And Ors
Facts
The Petitioner, Raamkay Crop Science Solutions Pvt. Ltd., filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an Audit Report dated March 11, 2024, and an Assessment Order dated July 15, 2024, both pertaining to the tax period 2019-2020. The Assessment Order was based on the Audit Report. The Petitioner sought to quash these orders. The Court noted that the Petitioner had previously availed of an alternate remedy by filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act for the tax period 2017-2018 on an identical issue. The Court was informed of a praecipe moved for speaking to the minutes of an order dated January 27, 2025, to correct an omission.
Held
The Court held that it would not entertain the Writ Petition as an alternate statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, was available to the Petitioner. The Court reasoned that the Petitioner had already availed of this remedy for a prior period on an identical issue, making it the appropriate recourse. The Court directed the Petitioner to avail of this alternate remedy. Crucially, the Court also held that the time taken to prosecute the Writ Petition should be excluded for the purpose of calculating the period of limitation for filing the appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The Appellate Authority was directed to examine and consider the contentions raised by the Petitioner in the Writ Petition before passing any order. No other issues were expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a Writ Petition when an alternate statutory remedy is available under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017? 2. Whether the time taken by the Petitioner to prosecute the Writ Petition should be excluded for the purpose of calculating the period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017? The Petitioner contended that the Writ Petition was the appropriate forum. The Revenue/State argued that an alternate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act was available and should be pursued. The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the Revenue/State regarding the exclusion of time for limitation, but the Court's order implies this point was considered.
Sections Cited
Section 65(7), Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
wp-1271-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURI ICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1271 OF 2025 Raamkay Crop Science Solutions Pvt. Ltd., .. Petitioners. Versus State of Maharashtra & Others .. Respondents Adv. Deepak Bapat, for the Petitioners.
CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: JANUARY 30, 2025 P. C. Not on board. Mentioned. At the request of learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, taken on board.
The above praecipe has been moved for speaking to the Minutes of Order dated 27th January, 2025. 2. By that Order, we had directed there was an alternate remedy available under Section 107 of the CGST Act to challenge the Assessment Order and we were not entertaining the Writ Petition and relegated the Petitioner to avail of the alternate remedy. However, in the Order, we had JANUARY 30, 2025 S.R.JOSHI SMITA RAJNIKANT JOSHI SMITA RAJNIKANT JOSHI Date: 2025.01.31 18:56:03 +0530
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.