M/S Friends Alloys vs. The UOI And Others
Held
The Court held that Section 107 of the CGST Act provides a statutory remedy of appeal for challenging orders passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to avail this appropriate statutory remedy by filing an appeal before the Competent Authority/Appellate Authority. The Court clarified that since the petitioner had been agitating the issue before the High Court, the delay in filing the appeal would not be a bar to its consideration on merits. The petitioner was granted 30 days from the date of the order to file the appeal, and the Competent Authority was directed to entertain and decide the appeal on merits within eight weeks from its filing, without rejecting it on the ground of limitation.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Friends Alloys, approached the High Court of Himachal Pradesh challenging an Order-in-Original (DRC-07) dated January 10, 2025, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Common Adjudicating Authority, CGST Commissionerate, Chandigarh, under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. They also challenged the summary of this order communicated via a letter dated February 3, 2025. The petitioner sought to quash these orders as being without jurisdiction, time-barred, arbitrary, illegal, and without sanction of law. The respondents included the Union of India and the State authorities.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned orders passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act are without jurisdiction, time-barred, arbitrary, illegal, and without sanction of law, warranting quashing by this Court in its writ jurisdiction? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were liable to be quashed on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, being time-barred, arbitrary, illegal, and lacking legal sanction. They sought immediate relief from the High Court to set aside these orders. Revenue/State's contention: No specific arguments were recorded for the respondents regarding the merits of the petitioner's claims. However, the Court acknowledged the existence of a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
Sections Cited
Section 74, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2026:HHC:27649 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4997 of 2025 Date of decision: 08.07.2026 M/s Friends Alloys.
...Petitioner. Versus Union of India & Ors.
…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. Ajay Vaidya, Advocate.
For the respondents : None for respondent No.1. : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Sushant Keprate, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.2 & 3-State.
: Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hitansh Raj, Mr. Gaurav Kumar and Ms. Avantika Bhandari, Advocates, for respondents No.4 & 5. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking following substantial relief(s):- “(i) That the impugned orders as contained in Annexure P-3 & P- 5 may kindly be Quashed and set aside being without Jurisdiction, Time barred, arbitrary, illegal and without sanction of law; (ii) That pending the hearing
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.