M/S Choice Tyres And Services vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Choice Tyres And Services, filed a writ petition challenging a notification dated March 31, 2023, which extended the limitation period under Section 73 of the CGST/RGST Act. The petitioner also challenged an ASMT-10 dated September 15, 2023, a summary of a show-cause notice dated September 27, 2023, and an Order-in-Original dated December 12, 2023. The Order-in-Original created a demand of Rs. 1,68,704/- against the petitioner, including tax, interest, and penalty. The writ petition was filed on January 2, 2024. The respondents objected to the maintainability of the writ petition, citing the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Held

The Court addressed two main aspects. Firstly, regarding the challenge to the vires of the notification dated March 31, 2023, the Court noted that this issue is sub judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 4240/2025. Consequently, the High Court refrained from adjudicating on the validity of the impugned notifications. Secondly, concerning the challenge to the Order-in-Original dated December 12, 2023, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The reasoning was that the petitioner had bypassed the statutory remedy of appeal available under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The Court held that the writ petition should be disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the appropriate authority within six weeks from the date of the order's upload. The Court explicitly stated that all issues and contentions raised by the petitioner were left open to be decided by the appellate authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable, given the existence of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017? (Question of law) 2. Whether the notification dated March 31, 2023, extending the limitation period under Section 73 of the CGST/RGST Act, is valid? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner sought to quash the impugned notification and the subsequent demand order. The specific arguments for challenging the notification are not detailed in the judgment, but the challenge to the Order-in-Original implies a dispute over the validity of the proceedings initiated under the extended limitation period. Respondents' arguments: The respondents contended that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has failed to avail the alternative remedy of appeal provided under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, against the impugned order.