M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of appeal before the Tribunal constituted under The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, against the order dated 19.09.2026 passed by the Appellate Authority. The Petitioner's counsel did not dispute the availability of this statutory remedy. While the Petitioner attempted to argue about the pre-deposit requirement based on the initiation date of proceedings and a prior judgment, the Court's primary focus was on the existence of the alternative remedy. Consequently, the Court decided to relegate the Petitioner to this alternative remedy. The writ petition and any pending applications were disposed of on this basis. The specific issue regarding the pre-deposit requirement was not decided on merits but implicitly deferred to the appellate process.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s Redamancy World, through its proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated 19.09.2026 passed by the Appellate Authority. The Petitioner argued that no pre-deposit would be required for filing an appeal before the Tribunal, as the proceedings were initiated before October 2025, relying on a previous judgment of the High Court in "Gaurav Jain & Anr. v. Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II) CGST Delhi Zone & Anr.". The availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal was not disputed by the Petitioner's counsel. The Respondents, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs & Ors., were represented by None.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of appeal before the Tribunal constituted under The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, against the order dated 19.09.2026 passed by the Appellate Authority? (Question of law) Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that they would not be required to make a pre-deposit by filing an appeal, as the proceedings were initiated before October 2025. They relied on the judgment in "Gaurav Jain & Anr. v. Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II) CGST Delhi Zone & Anr." to support this claim. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue did not present any arguments as none appeared. However, the judgment notes that the availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal was not disputed by the Petitioner's counsel.