Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And Another
Held
The Court held that the petitioners had an alternate and efficacious remedy of filing a statutory appeal. This was the primary reason for the petitioners seeking to withdraw the writ petition. The Court granted permission for the withdrawal, allowing the petitioners to pursue their statutory appeal. The reasoning was based on the availability of a more appropriate legal recourse through the statutory appeal mechanism. The Court also directed that the time spent prosecuting the writ petition should be taken into consideration for any delay condonation at the time of filing the appeal. No specific GST provisions were discussed in detail as the matter was disposed of on procedural grounds.
Facts
The petitioners, Mascot Constructions Co. and Another, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, challenging an order or action by the Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax (GST) and another respondent. The specific tax period(s) and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. After arguing the matter on merits for some time, the petitioners' counsel, facing the prospect of an alternate and efficacious statutory appeal, sought permission to withdraw the writ petition. The court granted this permission.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioners have an alternate and efficacious remedy of filing a statutory appeal against the order or action of the GST authorities? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners, after arguing the matter on merits, sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a statutory appeal, implying they acknowledged the existence of such a remedy. Revenue's contention: The revenue's contention is not explicitly recorded, but their presence as respondents and the court's eventual decision suggest they would have argued for the existence of an alternate remedy. The court's observation that the petitioners faced the situation of having an alternate and efficacious remedy indicates this was a key consideration.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
{1} 1-wp-10665-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 1 WRIT PETITION NO. 10665 OF 2026 Mascot Constructions Co. And Another VERSUS The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And Another ... Mr. Amit. A. Yadkikar, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. P.P. Dawalkar, Senior Standing Counsel and Pratik Kothari, Jr. Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 1 CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
DATE : 22nd OCTOBER, 2026 PER COURT :
After arguing for some time on merits, when the petitioners faced with the situation that they have alternate and efficacious remedy of filing statutory appeal, learned advocate for the petitioners, seeks permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file appeal.
Permission is granted. Writ Petition is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.
Time spent in prosecuting the present petition may be taken into consideration at the time of delay condonation. (ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) Bhagyawant Punde 2026:BHC-AUG:51138-DB
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 Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.