M/S V.S.Enterprises Through Its Proprietor,Shri Sunil Kumar Verma vs. Union Of INDIA Thro The Commissioner,Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs
Held
The Court declined to entertain the writ petition. It held that where an alternate statutory remedy is available, a writ petition under Article 226 should normally not be exercised, as it would allow the statutory machinery to be bypassed. The Court further held that if a petitioner has disabled themselves from availing the statutory remedy by their own fault, they cannot use this as a ground for the High Court to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction. The Court relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Assistant Commissioner (Ct) Ltu, Kakinada and Others v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited and Rikhab Chand Jain v. Union of India. The writ petition was dismissed on the grounds that the petitioner had an equally efficacious remedy which they failed to avail within the statutory time limits.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s V.S. Enterprises, challenged an Order-in-Original dated 26.08.2024, and consequential orders dated 27.08.2024 and 04.02.2026, passed under Sections 73 and 79 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner did not file a statutory appeal against the Order-in-Original within the prescribed limitation period. The writ petition was filed on 27th February 2026, significantly beyond the 120-day limitation period, including the extendable period of 30 days under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The respondents are the Union of India and various CGST and Commercial Tax authorities of Jharkhand.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution when an alternate statutory remedy of appeal is available but has not been availed by the petitioner within the prescribed limitation period, particularly when the petitioner has disabled themselves from availing the remedy by their own fault? (Section 107, CGST Act, 2017). The petitioner argued for the High Court's intervention. The respondents contended that the petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal which they failed to pursue within the stipulated time, and therefore, the writ petition should not be entertained, citing Supreme Court precedents.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 79, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:9318-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (T) No. 2034 of 2026 M/s V.S. Enterprises through its Proprietor, Shri Sunil Kumar Verma, S/o Late Satyanarayan Prasad aged about 65 years having office at C-15, 4th Phase, Industrial Area, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S.-Adityapur, Kharsawan, Jharkhand-831013. District-Seraikela ........... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India through the Commissioner, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, Central Secretariate, P.O.-New Delhi GPO, P.S.- Parliament Street, New Delhi -110001
The Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax & Central Excise, Jharkhand, GST Bhawan, Bistupur, P.Ο. & P.S.-Bistupur, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand.
The Superintendent, Adityapur-V Range, Division-III, Jamshedpur, Central GST & Central Excise, Room No. 407, 3rd Floor, GST Bhawan, Bistupur, P.O. & P.S.-Bistupur, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand. District-East Singhbhum,
The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Commercial Taxes, Jharkhand, 3rd Floor, Projec
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 Jharkhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.