Escorts Kubota Limited vs. Union Of INDIA And Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Escorts Kubota Limited, filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The revenue, Union of India and Others, was the respondent. The specific tax period 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 stated. The procedural history that matters 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. The petitioner indicated an intention to avail this statutory remedy.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The reasoning was based on the established principle that when an alternative statutory remedy is available and has not been availed by the petitioner, the High Court, exercising its writ jurisdiction, would generally not entertain the petition. 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 they had admittedly not availed. The ratio decidendi is that statutory remedies must be exhausted before approaching the High Court under its writ jurisdiction, unless there are exceptional circumstances not present here. The operative direction was to allow the petitioner to file the appeal within four weeks from the date of the order, and the same shall be entertained without objection on the ground of limitation. No issue was expressly left undecided.
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 they intended to avail the statutory remedy of appeal. The revenue did not present any arguments as the Court did not proceed to hear the merits of the case due to the availability of an alternative remedy. The Court's decision hinges on the existence and non-utilization of the statutory appeal mechanism.
Sections Cited
Section 112
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
211-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-35284-2024 (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-35284-2024 (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.