M/S Nipso Polyfabriks LTD vs. The State Of Hp And Others

Held

The Court held that the GST Appellate Tribunal has been constituted. Therefore, the petitioner has an available and efficacious statutory remedy before the Tribunal for redressal of its grievances. The Court reasoned that since a specific appellate forum under the GST Act is now functional, the petitioner should approach that forum instead of invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. The ratio decidendi is that where a statutory appellate remedy is available and functional, writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be exercised. The petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Himachal Pradesh High Court challenging an appellate order dated 21.11.2025. This order, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Grade-I) (Appeal) under Section 107 of the CGST/HPGST Act, 2017, upheld an earlier order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Taxes & Excise, under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that in the absence of a constituted GST Appellate Tribunal, they had no alternative efficacious remedy and thus approached the High Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. The respondents, represented by the Additional Advocate General, submitted that the GST Appellate Tribunal had been constituted, rendering the writ petition unnecessary as a specific appellate remedy was available.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy before the GST Appellate Tribunal, thereby precluding the High Court from exercising its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that in the absence of a constituted GST Appellate Tribunal, they had no alternative efficacious remedy and were therefore justified in approaching the High Court. They relied on the principle that writ jurisdiction can be invoked when no other adequate remedy is available. Respondents' contention: The respondents argued that the GST Appellate Tribunal had been constituted. Consequently, a specific statutory remedy by way of appeal to the Tribunal was available to the petitioner for redressal of their grievances, making the writ petition unsustainable.