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 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 detailed in the provided text. The amount in dispute is also not mentioned. The procedural history indicates 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 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 admittedly not been availed. The reasoning was based on the principle that statutory remedies should generally be exhausted before approaching the High Court under its writ jurisdiction. The Court directed that if the petitioner files an appeal within four weeks from the date of the order, it shall be entertained without any objection being raised on the ground of limitation. This implies that the Court acknowledged the petitioner's right to pursue the statutory remedy and provided a concession regarding the timeline. The ratio decidendi is that the availability of an effective alternative remedy is a ground for declining to exercise writ jurisdiction. No issue was expressly left undecided.
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 their senior counsel, indicated an intention to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the Act of 2017. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the respondent-Union of India/CBIC or the State of Haryana regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the grounds of alternative remedy. However, the Court's observation in paragraph 1 implies that the existence of the alternative remedy was a significant factor.
Sections Cited
Section 112
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****
CWP-25388-2025 (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.