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 and the order or action under challenge, as well as the authority that passed it, are not detailed in the judgment. The amount in dispute is also not stated. The procedural history relevant to the High Court's decision is that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 112 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which they had not availed.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable because the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which they have admittedly not availed. The Court reasoned that in the presence of such an alternative remedy, it is not inclined to entertain a writ petition. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts should generally relegate parties to statutory remedies when available, especially when the alternative remedy is a specific appeal mechanism provided by the statute. 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. No other issues were decided, and no specific relief was granted by the High Court itself, other than facilitating the filing of the appeal.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court when the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that the writ petition should be entertained. The revenue (respondents) argued that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the Act of 2017, which has not been availed. The Court did not record any specific arguments from the petitioner beyond their intention to avail the statutory remedy.
Sections Cited
Section 112
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
211-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-35260-2024 (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-35260-2024 (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.