M/S Nitin Plastic vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax And 2 Others
Held
The High Court, without entering into the merits of the case, decided not to interfere with the order dated August 21, 2026, which blocked the petitioner's ITC of Rs. 44,21,485/-. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submission that they had already approached the respondent No. 1 (presumably the authority who passed the blocking order or a higher authority) by means of an application dated August 22, 2026, referring to Rule 86A(2) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The Court's reasoning was based on the existence of this alternative statutory remedy. Therefore, the Court disposed of the writ petition with a specific direction to respondent No. 1 to deal with and decide the petitioner's application strictly in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two weeks from the date of the order. The ratio decidendi is that when an effective alternative statutory remedy is available and has been invoked by the petitioner, the High Court may relegate the parties to that remedy, especially at an early stage, without adjudicating the merits of the primary grievance.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Nitin Plastic, challenged an order dated August 21, 2026, which blocked Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 44,21,485/-. The order was passed by an authority under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act. The petitioner contended that they had already filed an application dated August 22, 2026, under Rule 86A(2) of the CGST Rules, 2017, seeking redressal. The revenue and Union respondents were represented by their respective counsel. The High Court heard arguments from all parties.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should interfere at this stage with the order dated 21.08.2026 providing for blocking of ITC amounting to Rs. 44,21,485/-. The petitioner argued that they have already availed the alternative remedy by filing an application under Rule 86A(2) of the CGST Rules, 2017, and therefore, the writ petition should be entertained. The revenue and Union respondents did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's submission regarding the alternative remedy. The core issue revolves around the availability and pursuit of an alternative statutory remedy versus the High Court's writ jurisdiction at an interlocutory stage.
Sections Cited
Rule 86A(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 4164 of 2026 Court No. - 39 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.
Having heard Sri Suyash Agarwal learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dhananjay Awasthi learned counsel for the revenue and Sri Abrar Ahmad learned counsel for the Union respondents, while no interference may be offered at this stage with the order dated 21.08.2026 providing for blocking ITC Rs. 44,21,485/-, in face of the other submission that the petitioner has already approached respondent No. 1 by means of application dated 22.08.2026 referable to Rule 86A(2) of the CGST Rules, 2017, without entering into the merits, present writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon respondent No. 1 to proceed to deal with and decide petitioner's above referred application, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two weeks from today.
October 13, 2026 Faraz Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sumeet Mishra, Suyash Agarwal Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Abrar Ahmad, Dhananjay Awasthi (Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) M/S Nitin Plastic .....Petitioner
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 Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.