Royal Multisport Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA - Rajasthan High Court, 23 September 2026

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[2026:RJ-JP:38639-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17525/2022 CNR: RJHC020924202022 | URN: CW / 35387U / 2022 Royal Multisport Private Limited, Having Its Address At Fulcrum, B Wing, 103-104, Hiranandani Business Park, Sahar Airport Road, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400099 Through Its Authorized Signatory Ms. Harvinder Sahni. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, New Delhi - 110 001 2. Chief Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Taxes Department, Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Janpath, Jaipur - 302 015 3. Joint Commissioner (State Tax), Anti Evasion -Rajasthan, Commercial Taxes Department, Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur - 302 005 4. Deputy Commissioner (State Tax), Circle -1, Anti Evasion - Rajasthan, Commercial Taxes Department, Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur 302 005 5. Appellate Authority, State Tax, Jaipur- I, Jaipur, Commercial Taxes Department, Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur 302 005 6. Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax And Central Excise, Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, C Scheme, Jaipur 302 005 7. Gst Council, Lic Building, Jeevan Bharti, Janpath, Connaught Place, New Delhi - 11001 Through Its Chairman 8. Commissioner Of State Tax, Maharashtra, Gst Bhavan, Balwant Singh Dhodi Marg, Mazgaon, Mumbai 400010 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka, Adv. Mr. Rohan Chatter, Adv. Ms. Apeksha Bapna, Adv. Mr. Virangana Wadhawan, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kinshuk Jain, Senior Standing [2026:RJ-JP:38639-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-17525/2022] Counsel assisted by Mr. Parth Khandal, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

Order 23/09/2026

The petitioner is a franchisee of a cricket team which participates in the Indian Premier League and is before this Court aggrieved against the impugned order dated 14.11.2018 and the appellate order dated 07.02.2020, passed by the respondents, whereby the petitioner has been directed to obtain GST registration in the State of Rajasthan and; has also been called upon to discharge CGST and SGST liability in respect of supplies relating to matches held in Rajasthan.

At the very outset, we may observe that the matter has remained pending before this Court for quite some time and when is taken up for hearing today, both the learned counsels appearing for respective respondents, in unison, object to the maintainability of the writ petition. On the ground, that it is the case pleaded by the petitioner itself, in affirmation, that as and when the GST Appellate Tribunal is constituted for the State of Rajasthan, they would take appropriate steps to approach the same by filing an appeal.

For ready reference the stand taken by the petitioner in paragraph 28 and 31 of the writ petition is reproduced hereinbelow:- (xxxx....xxxx....xxxx) "

28.

That the Petitioner thereafter filed a letter dated 08.04.2020 with Respondent No. 3 inter alia stating that the Petitioner will file an appeal from the Impugned order before the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal, in terms of Section 112 of the RGST Act, once it is constituted. Further, relying on Order No. 09/2019-Central Tax dated 03.12.2019 issued by the Central Government read with CBIC Circular no. 132/2/2020-GST dated 18.03.2020, it was stated that the statutory limit of 3 months for filing the appeal will only commence when the President or State President of the Appellate Tribunal enters the office. Therefore, in the present case, the prescribed statutory period for filing appeal (i.e., 3 months) before the Appellate Tribunal

[2026:RJ-JP:38639-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-17525/2022] will commence only from the date on which the President/State President of the said Appellate Tribunal enters office, and till such time, the operation of the Impugned Order cannot be enforced and no coercive action should be taken against Petitioner. Copy of the letter dated 08.04.2020 filed by the Petitioner is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure 21. (xxxx....xxxx....xxxx)

31.

That on 09.07.2021, another summons under Section 70 of the RGST Act was issued to Petitioner by Respondent No. 3 seeking information in relation to matches held at SMS Stadium. The Petitioner duly submitted the information required vide e-mail dated 16.07.2021, as a matter of good faith and cooperation, while conspicuously reiterating that it will file an appeal from the Impugned Order once the Appellate Tribunal is constituted and accordingly the investigation proceedings ought to be kept in abeyance. Copy of the summons dated 09.07.2021 and reply dated 16.07.2021 are annexed herewith and marked Annexure 27 and Annexure 28 respectively."

Apropos, it transpires that the GST Appellate Tribunal has not only been constituted but is presently functional and now hearing appeals. In the premise, we are of the view that instead of invoking the extraordinary writ juri iction of this Court, the petitioner ought to first seek adjudication of its grievance as per the adjudicatory process provided under the statute by filing an appeal under Section 112 of the Act.

Before we pass appropriate order qua the same, we may also observe that during the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, a coordinate Bench then seized of the matter had passed the following order dated 18.04.2024: "Heard. This petition is required to be heard finally as pleadings are complete. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the petitioner would have suffered an adverse order and he would have gone in appeal according to the existing provision with regard to appeal on deposit of 10% of the tax amount, recovery of balance would not have taken place. On that aspect of the statutory scheme with regard to pre- deposit, learned counsel for the respondents do not dispute the legal position. Therefore, in these circumstances, we are inclined to protect the petitioner in the manner that upon depositing amount of 10% i.e. Rs.54 lacs, as provided, of the tax demand, further proceedings shall remain in abeyance. List for hearing."

In view of the aforesaid order, we direct that during the pendency of the appeal proposed to be filed before the GST Tribunal, the above

[2026:RJ-JP:38639-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-17525/2022] said interim stay granted in favour of the petitioner shall continue to enure to its benefit, particularly since the mandatory requirement of deposit of 10% has already been complied with by the petitioner.

The instant writ petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the GST Tribunal. However, it is made clear that in order to avail continuation of the interim stay, the appeal shall be filed within a period of 30 days from the date of uploading of the instant order on the website of this Court.

In the parting, we make it clear that all issues and contentions raised before us are left open to be urged before and decided by the learned GST Tribunal in accordance with law, including the contention regarding violation of the principles of natural justice by respondent No. 4, who is the adjudicating authority and whose order dated 14.11.2018 was unsuccessfully assailed before the learned Appellate Authority.

Petition as well as pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (ARUN MONGA),J 15/Ashwani -Tanisha