Value Foods vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
Multiple petitioners, including Flex Foods Limited, Vidyasagar Foods Private Limited, Tasty Agro Foods, Revant Foods Private Limited, Khatri Foods, Tapovan Foods Private Limited, Value Foods, Bajwa Vegicraft Private Limited, AR Enterprises, Food Craft Industries, and Holyland Marketing Private Limited, filed writ petitions before the Delhi High Court. The specific tax periods and the exact nature of the orders or actions under challenge, as well as the authorities who passed them, are not detailed in the provided text. The amount in dispute is also not specified. The procedural history indicates that these writ petitions were filed, and the court considered the availability of statutory remedies.
Held
The Court held that since a statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioners, they should be relegated to that remedy. The Court explicitly stated that it had not gone into the merits of the matter. Regarding a pending representation based on Section 11(a) of the CGST Act, the Court expected the respondents to deal with it expeditiously and communicate the order to the petitioners. The Court also granted liberty to the petitioners to present their appeals within one week from the date of the order, and these appeals should not be dismissed on the ground of limitation. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition with these observations and liberty, and pending applications were also disposed of.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioners should be relegated to the statutory remedy of appeal, given its availability? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners likely argued that the writ petition was the appropriate recourse, possibly due to the urgency of the matter, a challenge to the procedural fairness, or an assertion that the statutory remedy was ineffective or unavailable in their specific circumstances. However, the judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the petitioners regarding why they approached the High Court via writ petitions instead of filing an appeal. Respondent's Argument: The respondents, Union of India and others, likely contended that a statutory appeal mechanism was in place and that the petitioners should exhaust this prescribed remedy before approaching the High Court under its writ jurisdiction. This is a common contention by revenue authorities when a clear appellate path exists.
Sections Cited
Section 11(a)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (4 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/04/2026 at 11:40:45
20480/2026, CM APPL. 20481/2026 REVANT FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Adv. (Appearance not given) versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: 53
+ W.P.(C) 4196/2026 & CM APPL. 20483/2026, CM APPL. 20484/2026, CM APPL. 20485/2026 KHATRI FOODS .....Petitioner Through: Adv. (Appearance not given) versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: 54
+ W.P.(C) 4197/2026 & CM APPL. 20487/2026, CM APPL. 20488/2026, CM APPL. 20489/2026 TAPOVAN FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Adv. (Appearance not given) versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Suhail Malik, SPC for UOI with Mr. Aqib Zaman, Adv. 55
+ W.P.(C) 4198/2026 & CM APPL. 20491/2026, CM APPL. 20492/2026, CM APPL. 20493/2026 VALUE FOODS .....Petitioner Through: Adv. (Appearance not given) This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/04/2026 at 11:40:45
versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: 56
+ W.P.(C) 4199/2026 & CM APPL. 20494/2026, CM APPL. 20495/2026, CM APPL. 20496/2026 BAJWA VEGICRAFT PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Adv. (Appearance not given) versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: 57
+ W.P.(C) 4200/2026 & CM APPL. 20497/2026, CM APPL. 20498/2026, CM APPL. 20499/2026 AR ENTERPRISES .....Petitioner Through: Adv. (Appearance not given) versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....RespondentS Through: 58
+ W.P.(C) 4201/2026 & CM APPL. 20500/2026, CM APPL. 20501/2026, CM APPL. 20502/2026 FOOD CRAFT INDUSTRIES .....Petitioner Through: Adv. (Appearance not given) versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Dr Abhishek Khanna, SPC Mr. Abhishek Khanna, Adv. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/04/2026 at 11:40:45
59
+ W.P.(C) 4202/2026 & CM APPL. 20503/2026, CM APPL. 20504/2026, CM APPL. 20505/2026 HOLYLAND MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Adv. (Appearance not given) versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shagun Shahi Chugh, Mr. Varun Chugh and Mr. Ayushi Agarwal, Advs. Ms. Shubhi Bhardwaj, SPC with Mr. Deepansh Sharma, Adv. Ms Anushree Narain Sr Standing Counsel with Mr Naman Choula and Mr Yamit Jetley, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL O R D E R %
2026
Since the statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petitioner is relegated to the same.
As far as the pending representation based on the provisions of Section 11(a) of the CGST Act which the respondent is concerned, we expect the respondents to deal with the said representation expeditiously and communicate the order to the petitioner.
With the above observations and liberty, the petition stands disposed of.
Needless to clarify, we have not gone into the merits of the matter and This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/04/2026 at 11:40:45
since the petitioners are relegated to the alternate remedy, the appeals, if so presented within a period of 1 week from today, be not dismissed on the ground of limitation.
Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of. NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J AJAY DIGPAUL, J APRIL 1, 2026/DM/OK. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/04/2026 at 11:40:45
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.