M/S Hdfc Bank Limited vs. The Commissioner Appeals Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Commissionerate Ludhiana And Anr
Facts
The petitioner, M/s HDFC Bank Limited, filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The respondents were the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Goods and Services Tax, Appeals Commissionerate Ludhiana, and another. The writ petition challenged an order or action, though the specific order, tax period, amount in dispute, and the authority that passed the original order are not detailed in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner had an alternative remedy available under Section 112 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which they had not yet availed.
Held
The Court held that it was not inclined to entertain the present writ petition because 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. The Court noted that the petitioner's counsel submitted that the petitioner intended to avail this statutory remedy. Consequently, the Court directed that if the petitioner files the appeal within four weeks from the date of the order, it shall be entertained without any objection being raised on the ground of limitation. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of this direction.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is available to the petitioner? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, through their counsel, indicated an intention to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the Act of 2017. No specific arguments were recorded against entertaining the writ petition on the grounds of alternative remedy. Respondent's contention: The respondent (Union of India/CBIC), through their counsel, implicitly argued that the writ petition should not be entertained due to the availability of the alternative remedy under Section 112 of the Act of 2017, as stated by the Court in its reasoning.
Sections Cited
Section 112
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
114 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****
CWP-635-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.07.2026 M/S HDFC BANK LIMITED ....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX APPEALS COMMISSIONERATE LUDHIANA AND ANOTHER ….RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:- HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Present: Mr. Abhinav Sood, Advocate Mr. Kumar Visalaksh, Advocate Mr. Ajitesh Dayal, Advocate Ms. Achintaya Soni, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sourabh Goel, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. Himanshi Gautam, Advocate and Ms. Drishti Saraf, Advocate for the respondent-Union of India/CBIC. ***** 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 submi
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.