Ms Moneswar Baro And Anr vs. The State Of Assam And 5 Ors

WP(C)/5116/2026HC GauhatiGSTCNR GAHC01019788202622 September 2026Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Moneswar Baro and Anr., represented by its proprietor Moneswar Baro, filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Appeal dated 01.07.2026 passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals), Guwahati (Respondent No. 3). This appeal was against an Order-in-Original dated 25.04.2024, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Tangla 1 (Respondent No. 4) under Section 73 of the Assam Goods and Services Tax (AGST) Act, 2017. The Order-in-Original confirmed a demand of Rs. 14,44,816/-. The Order-in-Appeal was passed in exercise of powers under Section 107 of the AGST Act.

Held

The Court held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is ordinarily not to be entertained when a statutory remedy of appeal is available, unless an exceptional case is made out. The Court noted that Section 112 of the AGST Act, 2017 provides for an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against an order passed under Section 107. Sub-section (1) of Section 112 prescribes a limitation period of three months for filing such an appeal, with a further provision under sub-section (6) allowing admission of appeals within an additional three months if sufficient cause is shown. As the period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 112 was still available to the petitioner on the date of the hearing, the Court concluded that the petitioner should avail this statutory remedy. Consequently, the writ petition was not entertained, and the petitioner was granted liberty to pursue the appeal under Section 112 of the AGST Act if they so advised.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable when a statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner under Section 112 of the AGST Act, 2017? The petitioner's contention, implied by the filing of the writ petition, is that exceptional circumstances warranting the invocation of writ jurisdiction exist, overriding the availability of the statutory appeal. The respondents, represented by the State Tax authorities and the Union of India, would likely argue that the statutory remedy is the appropriate recourse and that the writ petition should not be entertained as a matter of course. They would emphasize the availability of the appeal mechanism provided by the Act.

Sections Cited

Section 73, Section 107, Section 112

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

Page No. 1/3 GAHC010197882026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5116/2026 MS MONESWAR BARO AND ANR OFFICE AT TANGLA JALUKBARI, WARD NO 2, UDALGURI, ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MONESWAR BARO 2: MONESWAR BARO S/O BINAN BORO R/O VILL JALUKBARI TANGLA WARD NO 2 DIST UDALGURI PIN 784521 ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND TAXATION, KAR BHAWAN, GANESHGURI, GHY, ASSAM 2:THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES ASSAM KAR BHAWAN G S ROAD DISPUR GHY 06 3:THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (APPEALS) GUWAHATI KAR BHAWAN DISPUR GHY 06 ASSAM Page No. 2/3 4:THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX TANGLA 1 TANGLA GUWAHATI ZONE A ASSAM 5:THE UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE GOVT OF INDIA NEW DELHI 6:THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE GST BHAWAN KEDAR ROAD MACHKHOWA GHY ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. N GOGOI, L DAS Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, STATE TAX,SC, GST BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

ORDER Date : 23.09.2026

Heard Ms. N. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Finance and Taxation Department for the respondent nos. 1 – 4; and Ms. A. Pradhan, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. S. Chetia, learned Central Government Counsel [CGC] for the respondent no. 5. 2. The petitioner has instituted this writ petition to assail an Order-in-Appeal dated 01.07.2026 passed by the Appellate Authority, that is, the respondent no.

The appeal was preferred against an Order-in-Original dated 25.04.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 73 of the Assam Goods and Services Tax [AGST] Act, 2017, whereby, a demand

Page No. 3/3 for an amount of Rs. 14,44,816/- came to be confirmed. The Order-in-Appeal was passed by the Appellant Authority in exercise of the power under Section 107 of the AGST Act.

As per sub-section [1] of Section 112 of the AGST Act, 2017, any person aggrieved by an order passed against him under Section 107 may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order within 3 [three] months from the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the person preferring the appeal. As per sub-section [6] of Section 112, the Appellate Tribunal may admit an appeal within 3 [three] months after the expiry of the period referred to in sub-section [1], if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period.

The law is well settled that when a statutory remedy of appeal is available, a writ petition under Article 226 is not to be entertained ordinarily, unless an exceptional case is made out.

Therefore, the petitioner herein should avail the remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the AGST Act as the period of limitation for filing the appeal under Section 112 is still available to the petitioner as on date. Consequently, the writ petition is not entertained, reserving the liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the AGST Act, if so advised.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

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