Escorts Kubota Limited vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors
Facts
The petitioner, Escorts Kubota Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The respondent was the Union of India and others. The specific tax period and the order or action under challenge, along with the authority that passed it, are not detailed in the provided text. 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 it was not inclined to entertain the 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 admittedly not been availed. The reasoning was based on the principle that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and generally not exercised when an effective alternative remedy exists. The Court noted that the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner intended to avail the statutory remedy. Accordingly, 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 these terms.
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 and has not been availed by the petitioner? The petitioner, Escorts Kubota Limited, did not explicitly argue against the existence of the alternative remedy. However, by filing the writ petition, they implicitly sought the High Court's intervention. The respondent, Union of India and others, contended that the writ petition should not be entertained due to the availability of the statutory appeal mechanism under Section 112 of the Act of 2017, which the petitioner had admittedly not pursued.
Sections Cited
Section 112
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****
CWP-25530-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.07.2026 ESCORTS KUBOTA LIMITED ....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ….RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:- HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Present: Mr. Tarun Gulati, Senior Advocate (through video conferencing) assisted by Ms. Priyanka Singla, 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. Mr. Sourabh Goel, Addl., AG, Haryana. ***** 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 Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner intends to avail the statutory remedy by filing an appeal under Section 1
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.