Haryana Power Generation Corporation LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Others
Facts
The petitioner, Haryana Power Generation Corporation Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. 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 recorded in the judgment. The amount in dispute is also not mentioned. The procedural history relevant to the High Court's decision is that the petitioner had an alternative remedy available under Section 112 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which it had not 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 it had admittedly not availed. The reasoning was based on the principle that statutory remedies should generally be exhausted before approaching the High Court under its writ jurisdiction. Upon learning of the petitioner's intention to avail the statutory remedy, the Court directed that if the petitioner files an appeal within four weeks from the date of the order, it shall be entertained without objection on the ground of limitation. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition on 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. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, through its learned Senior Counsel, indicated its intention to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the Act of 2017. No specific argument was made against the availability of the alternative remedy, but rather an intent to pursue it was declared. Revenue's contention: The respondents, represented by Senior Standing Counsel, did not explicitly argue against entertaining the writ petition. However, the Court's decision implicitly acknowledges the existence and preference for the statutory remedy.
Sections Cited
Section 112
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****
CWP-23141-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.07.2026 HARYANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD ....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. Sandeep Goyal, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Aakriti, 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 Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner 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 files
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.