Kamesh vs. Union Of INDIA

WPMB/597/2026HC UttarakhandGSTCNR UKHC01012728202627 July 2026Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY1 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The petitioner, Kamesh, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand challenging an order dated 25.03.2026 passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017. The respondents were the Union of India, Assistant Commissioner, and Superintendent. The petitioner's counsel informed the Court that the petitioner had already availed the remedy of appeal against the impugned order. Consequently, the petitioner did not wish to press the writ petition.

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner had availed the remedy of appeal against the order dated 25.03.2026 passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017. As the petitioner did not wish to press the writ petition, the Court dismissed the writ petition as not pressed. The dismissal was explicitly stated to be without prejudice to the appeal that had been filed against the impugned order. The Court did not decide on the merits of the case or the validity of the order under Section 74.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative remedy of appeal has been availed by the petitioner against the impugned order passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, through their counsel, stated that they have availed the remedy of appeal against the order dated 25.03.2026. Therefore, they do not wish to press the writ petition. Revenue's contention: No specific contention was recorded for the revenue or state in the judgment.

Sections Cited

Section 74

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

UKHC010127282026 2026:UHC:6397-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY 27TH JULY, 2026 WRIT PETITION (M/B) No. 597 of 2026 1: Kamesh --Petitioner Versus 1: Union Of India 2: Assistant Commissioner 3: Superintendent --Respondents Counsel for petitioner. : Mr. Birendra Singh Adhikari, learned counsel. Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3. : Mr. Shobhit Saharia and Ms. Riddhi Joshi, learned counsel.

ORDER : (per Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)

The petitioner has assailed the order dated 25.03.2026 passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has availed the remedy of appeal against the said order and, therefore, does not wish to press the writ petition.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed, without prejudice to the appeal, which is stated to have been filed against the impugned order.

All pending applications stand disposed of according

The judgment continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free account Sign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

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