Sharma Construction Company Through Its Propreitor Shri Piyush Sharma vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the order under challenge was appealable under Section 107 of the GST Act. The petitioner's counsel conceded this fact. The Court found no grounds to bypass the statutory remedy available to the petitioner. The existence of an inter se dispute between the petitioner and other respondents was not considered a sufficient reason to entertain the writ petition, especially since the appellate authority could look into such disputes. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal. It also clarified that this liberty should not be construed as condonation of delay, and if the appeal was time-barred, the petitioner would need to seek condonation of delay if permissible. No specific issue regarding the GST imposition on royalty was decided on merits.

Facts

The petitioner, Sharma Construction Company, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 01.04.2026 passed by the State Tax Officer, State GST. This order imposed GST on royalty paid for mining and Krishi. The petitioner argued that the writ petition was filed due to an inter se dispute between the petitioner and respondents No. 4 to 6. The revenue was represented by the Union of India and others, and the State. The counsel for the petitioner conceded that the order under challenge was appealable under Section 107 of the GST Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should entertain a petition when a statutory remedy of appeal is available under Section 107 of the GST Act? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the writ petition was necessitated by an inter se dispute between the petitioner and respondents No. 4 to 6, implying this dispute warranted bypassing the statutory appeal route. The petitioner did not explicitly argue against the availability of the appeal. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not present any specific arguments on the merits of the GST imposition. Their implicit contention, as understood from the court's decision, was that the statutory remedy should be exhausted. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue regarding the GST imposition itself.