M/S Luxmi Builders (Atul) Through Proprietor Atul Thakur vs. Joint Commissioner (In-Situ) CGST Division Dharmashala
Held
The Court held that a statutory remedy by way of an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act is available to the petitioner against the impugned order passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act. The Court further held that the Appellate Authority is competent to decide the question of the competency of the authority that passed the impugned order. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the concerned Appellate Authority within 30 days from the date of the order. The Court directed that the expiry of the period of limitation shall not be a bar to filing the appeal, and the Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal on its merits within 8 weeks of its filing, without rejecting it on grounds of limitation.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Luxmi Builders, assailed an original order dated 02.12.2025 and a DRC-07 dated 04.12.2025, passed by the Superintendent (Adjudication), CGST, Dharamshala, and approved by the Joint Commissioner, CGST, Dharamshala. The order was passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act. The petitioner approached the High Court through a writ petition. The respondents were represented by counsel who waived service. The Court noted that the order was appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act and the Appellate Authority could decide the competency of the issuing authority.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner has a valid statutory remedy available under Section 107 of the CGST Act against the impugned order passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner, by approaching the High Court, implicitly sought to bypass the statutory appeal mechanism, likely due to perceived issues with the order or the appellate process. However, the judgment does not explicitly record the petitioner's arguments for filing the writ petition directly. Respondents' Contention: The respondents, through their counsel, argued that a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act is available and competent to address the petitioner's grievances, including the competency of the adjudicating authority.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
( 2026:HHC:27999 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 11363 of 2026 Date of Decision: 10.07.2026 M/s. Luxmi Builders, (Atul) ....Petitioner Versus Joint Commissioner (in-situ) CGST Division Dharamshala & Anr. ....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Hon’ble Mr Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Nitin Kumar & Mr. Dushant Najah, Advocate (through V.C.) and Mr. Parikshit Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vijay Kumar Aroa, Senior Advocate, with M/s. Hitansh Raj, Aastha Kohli & Avantika Bhandari, Advocates. Vivek Singh Thakur,Judge (oral)
Notice. Mr. Hitansh Raj, Advocate, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.
The present petition has been preferred assailing the impugned original order dated 02.12.2025, bearing Order No. 07/DC/GST/DSL/2025-26, along with the impugned DRC-07 dated 04.12.2025 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Superintendent (Adjudication), CGST, Dharamshala and approved by the Joint Commissioner, CGST, Dharamshala. The order has been passed under Section 73 o
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.