M/S. Vinayak Petrochem vs. Union Of INDIA

CW/8818/2025HC RajasthanGSTCNR RJHC02046799202530 June 2025Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Vinayak Petrochem, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court challenging multiple orders. The Court, upon hearing the parties, decided to grant liberty to the petitioner to pursue the writ petition only concerning an order dated February 2, 2023, pertaining to the financial year 2017-2018. For all other impugned orders, the petition was dismissed with the liberty to file separate petitions. The respondents' counsel submitted that as the Tribunal is not yet constituted, the petition should not be kept pending, but disposed of with protection under Section 112(8) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, allowing the petitioner to file an appeal within a stipulated period after the Tribunal's constitution. The petitioner's counsel agreed to this arrangement.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition, at this stage, would be disposed of with a specific direction. The petitioner was granted liberty to prosecute the writ petition concerning the impugned order dated February 2, 2023, pertaining to the financial year 2017-2018. For all other impugned orders, the petition was dismissed, with the liberty to file separate petitions. The Court accepted the parties' consensus to dispose of the matter by directing that if the petitioner makes the payment as per the provisions of sub-Section (8) of Section 112 of the Act, further proceedings for recovery of the balance amount shall not be drawn. This is contingent upon the petitioner availing the statutory remedy of appeal within a period of three months from the date of the constitution of the Tribunal. The ratio decidendi is that in the absence of a constituted appellate tribunal, High Courts may, with consent, direct the disposal of writ petitions by allowing parties to pursue statutory remedies upon constitution, with appropriate interim protections.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition should be kept pending or disposed of with liberty to file an appeal after the constitution of the Tribunal, considering the non-constitution of the Tribunal and the availability of statutory remedy under Section 112(8) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner agreed to the disposal of the petition on the condition proposed by the respondents, which involved availing the statutory remedy of appeal within a specified period after the Tribunal's constitution, with appropriate protection regarding recovery of the balance amount. Respondents' Argument: The respondents argued that since the Tribunal has not been constituted, the writ petition should not be kept pending. They proposed that the petition be disposed of with protection under Section 112(8) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, allowing the petitioner to file an appeal within a stipulated period from the date the Tribunal is constituted. They relied on a circular dated March 23, 2020, issued by the Government of Rajasthan, Finance Department (Tax Division).

Sections Cited

Section 112(8)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[2025:RJ-JP:23763-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8818/2025 M/s. Vinayak Petrochem, 8B, C/o Jaipur Maize Product Co., Below Jhotwara Puliya, Jhotwara, Jaipur, 302012 (Rajasthan) Through Its Proprietor Mr. Vikram Singh S/o Yogendra Singh. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Finance Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. The State Of Rajasthan Through Chief Commissioner, State Goods And Service Tax, Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur. 3. The Principal Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax, Statue Circle, C Scheme, Jaipur 4. The Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Circle- B, Enforcement Wing- Ii, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mayank Vyas For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Taneja, AAG with Mr. Aditya Sharma Mr. Kinshuk Jain, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Saurabh Jain HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Order 30/06/2025

We find that this petition has been filed impugning order passed in different proceedings.

We give liberty to the petitioner to prosecute this writ petition insofar as impugned order dated 2.2.2023 in respect of financial year 2017-2018 is concerned. As far as other impugned orders are concerned, this petition is dismissed with liberty to file separate petition.

[2025:RJ-JP:23763-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-8818/2025]

Mr. Kinshuk Jain enters appearance and takes notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Mr. Sandeep Taneja, AAG enters appearance and takes notice for respondent Nos. 2 and 4. 4. Though the matter comes up for admission today, with the consent of the parties, the petition is being disposed of finally.

At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that at present the Tribunal has not been constituted and the process towards constitution of the Tribunal is going on, therefore, in these circumstances, this petition may not be kept pending but with appropriate protection available under Section 112(8) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax, 2017 (for short ‘the Act’), this petition may be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file appeal within stipulated period form the date, the Tribunal is constituted. In support of his submission, he places reliance upon a circular dated 23.03.2020 issued by Government of Rajasthan, Finance Department (Tax Division).

Learned counsel for the petitioner agrees to the disposal of the petition on the aforesaid condition.

Accordingly, this petition, at this stage, is disposed of with a direction that in case petitioner makes payment as per provisions contained in sub-Section (8) of Section 112 of the Act, further proceedings shall not be drawn for recovery of the balance amount, provided that the petitioner avails statutory remedy of appeal within a period of three months from the date of the constitution of the Tribunal. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ N. Gandhi/Deepa-34

Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.