M/S Tradelink Hub vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors
Facts
The petitioner, M/S TRADELINK HUB, filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The respondents were the Union of India and others, including the CBIC. The specific tax period(s) and the order or action under challenge, along with the authority that passed it, are not detailed in the provided judgment excerpt. The amount in dispute is also not mentioned. The procedural history is limited to the filing of the writ petition.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The primary reason for this decision was the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court reasoned that statutory appeals provide a proper channel for addressing grievances related to GST matters. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts should generally relegate parties to statutory remedies when they are available and effective. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition but with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act within four weeks from the date of the order, and such an appeal would be entertained without objection regarding limitation. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court, given the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 107 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner, represented by Ms. Priyanshi Chakravarty, did not explicitly argue on the maintainability of the writ petition or present any counter-arguments to the Court's observation regarding the alternative remedy. Respondent's Argument: The respondent-CBIC, represented by Dr. Sukant Gupta, Senior Advocate, and Ms. Ridhi Bansal, Junior Standing Counsel, did not present any arguments in the provided excerpt. However, the Court's decision implies that the existence of the alternative remedy was a significant factor.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
123 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****
CWP-15373-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.08.2026 M/S TRADELINK HUB ....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ….RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:- HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Present: Ms. Priyanshi Chakravarty, Advocate (through VC) for the petitioner. Dr. Sukant Gupta, Senior Advocate/Sr. Standing Counsel assisted by Mr. Navdeep Monga, Advocate for the respondent-CBIC. Ms. Ridhi Bansal, Junior Standing Counsel for the respondent. ***** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J. (Oral)
Considering that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, we are not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition.
Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to avail the aforesaid remedy of appeal in accordance with law.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we provide that if such an appeal is filed within a period of fo
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 Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.