M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of appeal against the order dated 26.12.2025, and this fact is not in dispute. Consequently, the Court was not inclined to exercise its writ jurisdiction. The reasoning was based on the availability of a statutory appeal mechanism, which the Petitioner had not pursued. The Court did not delve into the merits of the Petitioner's arguments regarding the uploading of the order or the allegations of circular trading, as the primary ground for dismissal was the existence of an alternative remedy. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts should generally relegate parties to alternative statutory remedies when they are available and effective, rather than entertaining writ petitions on matters that can be adjudicated through the appellate process. The Petitioner was relegated to the alternative remedy of appeal.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s. Rohit Medical Systems, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated 26.12.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax. The Petitioner sought to rely on a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment, arguing that mere uploading of an order on the common portal is insufficient. The Respondent contended that the Petitioner had participated in the proceedings, including submitting a reply to a Show Cause Notice and attending a hearing, thus could not claim ignorance of the order. The Respondent also cited a Telangana High Court judgment stating that automatic email and SMS alerts are sent upon order upload. Serious allegations of circular trading against the Petitioner were also noted.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of appeal against the order dated 26.12.2025, thereby precluding the exercise of writ jurisdiction by this Court? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner implicitly argued for the exercise of writ jurisdiction by approaching the High Court directly, suggesting the alternative remedy might not be effective or that the circumstances warranted direct intervention. They relied on the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment in M/s Luxmi Traders & Ors. v. Union Territory of Chandigarh & Ors. to support their argument regarding the insufficiency of portal uploading. Respondent's Contention: The Respondent argued that an effective alternative remedy of appeal is available to the Petitioner against the impugned order. They further contended that the Petitioner's participation in the proceedings, including submitting a reply and attending a hearing, negates any claim of ignorance. The Respondent cited the Telangana High Court judgment in Gudla Vanaja and Ors. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), Saroor Nagar-I Circle, Telangana and Ors. to establish that the Petitioner is duly notified through automatic email and SMS alerts upon order upload.