M/S Biovision INDIA vs. Union Of INDIA And Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Biovision India, filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The respondents were the Union of India and others, including the revenue. The specific tax period and the order or action under challenge, as well as the authority that passed it, are not detailed in the provided text. The amount in dispute is also not mentioned. The procedural history relevant to the High Court's decision is that the petitioner approached the High Court directly via a writ petition.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable because the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 112 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which they have admittedly not availed. The Court reasoned that the existence of a statutory appeal mechanism ordinarily bars the invocation of writ jurisdiction. The ratio decidendi is that where a clear and effective alternative remedy exists, a High Court should not entertain a writ petition. The operative direction was that if the petitioner files an appeal under Section 112 of the Act of 2017 within four weeks from the date of the order, it shall be entertained without any objection being raised on the ground of limitation. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court, given the existence of an alternative statutory remedy under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner argued for the maintainability of the writ petition. The respondent argued that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 112 of the Act of 2017, which they have admittedly not availed. The Court had to decide whether to entertain the writ petition or direct the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy.
Sections Cited
Section 112
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
211-20 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-3190-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18th August, 2026. M/S. BIOVISION INDIA
.…...Petitioner(s) V/s UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
......Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR
Present Mr. Rishab Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sourabh Goel, Senior Standing Counsel, UOI, with Ms. Himanshi Gautam, Advocate, and Ms. Drishti Saraf, Advocate for the respondents-UOI.
Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Senior Standing Counsel, and Mr. Manpreet Kanda, Advocate, for the respondent-revenue.
****
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J. (Oral)
Since the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 112 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, the ‘Act of 2017’), which has admittedly not been availed, we are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that the petitioner(s) intends to avail the statutory remedy by filing an appeal under Section 112 of the Act of 2017. 3. In the facts of the case, we direct that in the event the petitioner(s) files the appeal within a period of four weeks from today, SURESH KUMAR 2026.08.21 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-3190-2025 (O&M)
the same shall be entertained without any objection being raised on the ground of limitation.
Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
[ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA] ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
[ROHIT KAPOOR] JUDGE
August 18, 2026 Ess Kay
Whether speaking / reasoned :
Yes / No Whether Reportable
:
Yes / No SURESH KUMAR 2026.08.21 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.