M/S The INDIA Cements Limtid Through Its Sanjeev Kumar Bohra Authorised Officer vs. Union Of INDIA
Held
The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax and others Vs. Chabbil Dass Agarwal, the Court reiterated that when a statutory forum is created for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring such a dispensation. A Coordinate Bench of the High Court also took a similar view in tax liability matters. The Court affirmed the view of the Apex Court in Zulfikar Ali and Rikhab Chand Jain, stating that in cases where an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal is available, a writ petition should not normally be entertained. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to entertain the present petition.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s The India Cements Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 13.02.2024 passed by respondent No. 5, which confirmed a demand along with penalty and interest. The petitioner contended that the order was not communicated but merely uploaded on the portal, and they only became aware of it on 06.01.2026. They also argued that the order was passed without granting a personal hearing. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition due to the availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court, given the availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that their appeal might be dismissed as barred by limitation and that the Appellate Authority cannot remand the matter to the adjudicating authority as per sub-section 11 of Section 107. The respondents contended that the petitioner should have availed the remedy under Section 107 before filing the writ petition.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Section 107(1), Section 107(11)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 13.02.2024 passed by the respondent No.5, whereby the demand alongwith penalty and interest has been confirmed.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the aforesaid order was never communicated to the petitioner and was merely uploaded on the portal and the petitioner came to know about the said order only on 06.01.2026. He further argued that the said order has been passed without granting any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.
On being confronted with the availability of alternative and efficaciou
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.
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 Madhya Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.