Facts of the Case

  • The petitioner, M/s Rishav Enterprises, is a proprietary concern managed by its proprietor, Smt. Rakhi Agarwal, operating from Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand.
  • The petitioner was aggrieved by an adverse order passed by the lower tax authorities/appellate authority and subsequently filed a Writ Petition (Tax) No. 3674 of 2026 before the High Court of Jharkhand.
  • The array of respondents included the Union of India through the Ministry of Finance, the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise (Jamshedpur), the Joint Commissioner (Appeal), and the Superintendent of CGST & CX.
  • During the circuit of the high court proceedings on June 8, 2026, the petitioner evaluated the alternate statutory remedies available under the GST regime for challenging the impugned demand or order.

Issues Involved

  • Whether a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be entertained by the High Court when an alternative, efficacious statutory remedy via the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) is operationally accessible to the taxpayer.
  • Whether the petitioner could be granted explicit liberty by the High Court to withdraw the pending writ application and safely transition to file a statutory appeal before the GST Tribunal without prejudicing its original legal grounds.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Jitendra Kumar, acting upon precise corporate instructions, submitted before the division bench that the petitioner preferred to approach the proper statutory forum.
  • The petitioner formally requested the Court for leave to withdraw the ongoing writ petition.
  • A specific prayer was made to secure liberty from the High Court so that the impugned order could be appropriately assailed and adjudicated before the GST Appellate Tribunal under the mechanisms provided by law.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The respondents, represented by Mr. Manoj Kumar and Mr. Radha Krishan Gupta (C.G.C.), did not object to the procedural trajectory of withdrawing the writ petition to knock on the doors of the appropriate tribunal.
  • The primary standpoint of the department remained that since the impugned order falls within the appellate jurisdiction of the GST Tribunal, the regular channel of statutory appeals under Section 112 ought to be pursued by the taxpayer instead of bypassing it through extraordinary writ jurisdictions.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Division Bench comprising Hon'ble The Chief Justice M. S. Sonak and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Shankar heard both sides on June 8, 2026.
  • The Court observed that the order impugned in the petition is validly appealable before the GST Tribunal.
  • Accordingly, the High Court granted the requested leave and dismissed the petition as withdrawn, while legally validating the petitioner's liberty to appeal the impugned order before the Tribunal.
  • Crucially, the Court explicitly ruled that all legal contentions of all participating parties are left open to be comprehensively examined and decided by the Tribunal in strict accordance with the law. The petition was disposed of with no orders as to costs.

Important Clarification

This ruling reinforces the established judicial discipline that when the GST Appellate Tribunal becomes functional or available, High Courts prefer not to parallelly adjudicate factual tax disputes under Article 226. By keeping "all contentions open," the High Court ensures that the transition from a writ court to a statutory tribunal does not wipe out or weaken the taxpayer's original grounds of defense or the revenue’s right to justify its demand.

Statutory Sections Involved

  • Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 / Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax (JGST) Act, 2017: Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal.
  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India: Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.

Link to download the order - https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783057726_304compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.