M/S Vastya Earthmovers Private Limited Through Director Premnarayan Jat vs. The Union Of INDIA Through The Secretary Department Of Revenue Ministry Of Finanance Revenue Departm

Held

The Court held that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked in this case. The Court found that the impugned order involved various disputed questions of fact and law, which are best decided by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority is considered better equipped to handle complex procedural aspects of such matters. Therefore, the Court concluded that the petition was misconceived. The Court dismissed the petition but granted liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal as prescribed under the Act of 2017. It was also clarified that the time spent by the petitioner in prosecuting the writ petition would be excluded from the period of limitation for filing the appeal.

Facts

M/s Vastya Earthmovers Private Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore, challenging an order dated 19.12.2025 passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) CGST Customs and Central Excise Indore. The petitioner argued that the appeal remedy under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was not applicable because it required depositing 20% of the disputed tax amount. The petitioner also claimed in their petition that no alternative and efficacious remedy was available. The petitioner's primary contention was that the delay in filing the appeal had not been condoned by the Appellate Authority, leading them to approach the High Court under its writ jurisdiction.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy available under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, despite the requirement to deposit 20% of the disputed tax amount? 2. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when disputed questions of fact and law are involved, which are better suited for adjudication by the appellate authority? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the appeal remedy was not applicable due to the mandatory pre-deposit of 20% of the disputed tax amount. They also argued that the delay in filing the appeal had not been condoned by the Appellate Authority, thus necessitating their approach to the High Court under its writ jurisdiction, asserting the absence of an alternative and efficacious remedy. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (Revenue).