M/S Aman Motors vs. The Commissioner CGST & Ors.
Held
The High Court held that the Petitioner should first approach the Appellate Authority by filing an application seeking correction of the alleged factual error in the Order-in-Appeal. The Court directed that if such an application is filed, the Appellate Authority shall consider and decide it within one month in accordance with the law. The Court did not delve into the merits of the factual dispute itself, deferring the resolution to the Appellate Authority. The ratio decidendi is that procedural remedies should be exhausted before approaching the High Court in writ jurisdiction for correction of factual errors, especially when a mechanism for correction exists within the appellate framework. The operative direction was to file an application before the Appellate Authority for correction of the error.
Facts
The Petitioner, M/s Aman Motors, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an Order-in-Appeal (OIA) dated 20.08.2026. The Petitioner contended that the OIA contained a patent factual error. Specifically, the Petitioner pointed out that the Order-in-Original (OIO) was passed on 26.03.2025, but the Appellate Authority incorrectly recorded in the OIA that the OIO was passed on 30.08.2024. The Petitioner argued that this factual inaccuracy warranted intervention by the High Court under its writ jurisdiction.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Order-in-Appeal dated 20.08.2026 contains a patent factual error regarding the date of the Order-in-Original, and if so, whether this warrants intervention by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the OIA was based on an incorrect factual premise, specifically misstating the date of the Order-in-Original. This patent error, they contended, justified the High Court's intervention. The Petitioner relied on the principle that writ jurisdiction can be exercised to correct manifest errors of fact or law. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Revenue or the Respondent authorities.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R % 28.10.2026
Learned counsel representing the Petitioner, inter alia, contends that the Order-in-Appeal (OIA) dated 20.08.2026 proceeds on an incorrect factual basis and as such the patent error apparent therein requires intervention by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
In regard to the aforestated, it is his contention that the Order- in-Original came to be passed on 26.03.2025, nevertheless, the Appellate Authority in the OIA has recorded that the same was passed on 30.08.2024. 3. In the opinion of this Bench, the Petitioner, at the first instance, ought to file an application before the Appellate Authority seeking correction of the alleged factual error. In the event, such application is filed, the Appellate Authority shall consider and decide the same This is a d
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 Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.