M/S Rs Polymers vs. The State Of Hp And Another
Held
The Court held that a statutory remedy was available to the petitioner against the order passed by the Authority pursuant to the show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the GST Act, 2017. The Court found that the petitioner had not been able to convince it as to why the issues raised in the writ petition could not be agitated before the Appellate Authority. Therefore, the Court concluded that the petitioner must exhaust the statutory remedy. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed without any further observation, but with liberty to the petitioner to approach the statutory Authority for the redressal of its grievances.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s RS Polymers, filed a writ petition before the Himachal Pradesh High Court challenging an order dated 14.07.2026 passed by Respondent No. 2 under Section 74(9) of the CGST/HPGST Act, 2017. This order, along with a summary of order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 20.07.2026 and a DRC-01 Notice dated 25.06.2026, was issued for denying Input Tax Credit (ITC) to the petitioner. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and prevent any adverse proceedings. The respondents were the State of Himachal Pradesh and another authority.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when a statutory remedy is available to the petitioner against the impugned order passed under Section 74(9) of the CGST/HPGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought to challenge the order denying ITC, implying that the issues raised could not be effectively addressed through the statutory appeal process. However, the judgment does not explicitly detail the petitioner's arguments for approaching the High Court directly. Respondents' contention: The respondents, through the Additional Advocate General, argued that a statutory remedy was available to the petitioner, and therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable. They contended that the petitioner had not convinced the Court why the issues could not be agitated before the Appellate Authority.
Sections Cited
Section 74, Section 74(9)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWP No.17096 of 2026
Decided on 29th September 2026 M/s RS Polymers
…Petitioner Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and another
…Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yogesh Jaswal, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Ms/ Goverdhan Lal Sharma and
Mukesh Pandey, Advocates.
For the respondents : Mr. Sushant Keprate, Additional
Advocate General.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- . “(i) For issuance of a writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction calling for the records pertaining to the Petitioners' case and after going into the validity and legality thereof to quash and set aside the Order dated 14.07.2026 passed by Respondent No. 2 under Section 74(9) of the CGST/HPGST Act, 2017, and the consequenti
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 Himachal Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.