Escorts Kubota Limited vs. Union Of INDIA And Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Escorts Kubota Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The respondents were the Union of India and others. The specific tax period(s) and the order or action under challenge, as well as the authority that passed it, are not recorded in the judgment. The amount in dispute is also not mentioned. The procedural history is that the petitioner filed a writ petition, and the Court noted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 112 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which had not been availed.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable because the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 112 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which had admittedly not been availed. The reasoning was based on the principle that High Courts generally do not entertain writ petitions when an effective alternative remedy exists. The ratio decidendi is that a party must exhaust statutory remedies before approaching the High Court under its writ jurisdiction, unless there are exceptional circumstances not present here. The Court directed that if the petitioner files an appeal within four weeks from the date of the order, it shall be entertained without any objection on the ground of limitation. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of this direction.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is available and has not been availed by the petitioner. The petitioner's contention was not explicitly stated in terms of arguing for the maintainability of the writ petition. However, the petitioner's counsel indicated an intention to avail the statutory remedy. The respondents (revenue) did not present any arguments as the Court primarily addressed the maintainability based on the available alternative remedy.
Sections Cited
Section 112
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
211-6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-9952-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18th August, 2026. ESCORTS KUBOTA LIMITED
.…...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 Ms. Priyanka Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sourabh Goel, Senior Standing Counsel, UOI/CBIC, with Ms. Himanshi Gautam, Advocate, and Ms. Drishti Saraf, Advocate for the respondents-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, the same shall be entertained without any objection being raised on the ground of limitation. SURESH KUMAR 2026.08.21 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-9952-2024 (O&M)
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.