Natubhai Uttambhai ODD Vs Additional Commissioner (Gujarat High Court)
The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of (i) the appellate order dated 29.09.2025 passed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, (ii) the order-in-original dated 20.01.2025 passed under Section 74 of the Act, and (iii) the show cause notice dated 03.08.2024 along with corrigendum dated 08.08.2024 issued under Section 74. The petitioner also sought interim relief staying the operation of the impugned appellate and original orders.
At the outset, the Court pointed out the availability of an alternative statutory remedy by way of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the filing of appeals before the Tribunal was not yet streamlined and that legal issues involved in the petition required adjudication by the High Court.
The respondents relied upon a Notification dated 17.09.2025 issued by the Ministry of Finance under Section 112(1) of the CGST Act, notifying 30.06.2026 as the last date for filing appeals before the Appellate Tribunal in respect of orders communicated before 01.04.2026. For orders communicated on or after 01.04.2026, appeals could be filed within three months from the date of communication.
In view of the said Notification and the availability of an alternative remedy, the Court held that the factual aspects and observations of the appellate authority could be examined by the Appellate Tribunal, which was already constituted. The Court observed that merely because the filing process was not streamlined would not dilute the statutory provisions governing appeal against the impugned orders.
The Court further held that no jurisdictional error had been committed by the appellate authority and the impugned order was not without jurisdiction. Therefore, the contentions raised in the writ petition could appropriately be addressed before the Tribunal. On this ground, the writ petition was rejected, as the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.
At that stage, the petitioner sought liberty to approach the Court in case the Tribunal did not take up the appeal within a reasonable time and recovery proceedings were initiated. The Court clarified that the petitioner could file an appropriate application seeking stay of recovery before the Tribunal. If the Tribunal did not pass any order on such application or rejected the prayer, it would remain open for the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings before the High Court.
Accordingly, the writ petition stood rejected on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT
1. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
“(A) YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to admit and allow the present petition;
(B) YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order in appeal dated 29.09.2025 passed u/s 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by Respondent No. 3 (Annexure-A);
(C) YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order in original dated 20.01.2025 passed u/s 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by Respondent No. 2 (Annexure – B);
(D) YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned show cause notice dated 03.08.2024 along with corrigendum dated 08.08.2024 issued u/s 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by Respondent No. 1 (Annexure-C);
(E) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to stay the implementation and operation of the impugned order in appeal dated 29.09.2025 as well as impugned order in original dated 20.01.2025.”
2. At the outset, this Court had specifically pointed out to the learned advocate Mr. Vijay Patel for the petitioner about the alternative remedy he is having to approach before the Appellate Tribunal. However, he has submitted that filing of the appeals before the Tribunal are not yet streamlined and since there is a legal issues which are involved in the present writ petition, the same are required to be advanced before this Court and adjudicated by this Court.
3. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Vidhi Vyas appearing for the respondents has referred to the Notification dated 17.09.2025 issued by the Ministry of Finance relating to the filing of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under the Act, on or before 30.06.2026.
“MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Revenue)
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 17th September, 2025
S.0. 4220(E)-In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) of section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017), the Government, on the recommendations of the Council, hereby notifies the 30 day of June, 2026, as the date upto which appeal may be filed before the Appellate Tribunal under this Act in respect of all cases where the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the person preferring the appeal before the 1 day of April, 2026 and all appeals in respect of order communicated on or after 1 April, 2026 may be filed before the Appellate Tribunal within three months from the date on which such order is communicated to the person preferring the appeal.”
4. Thus, in view of the aforesaid availability of the alternative remedy, the submissions advanced by learned advocate Mr. Patel for the petitioner pointing out the factual aspects and the observations of the Appellate Court relating to the issues, can always be dealt by an appropriate Tribunal, which is already constituted. Merely because the filing is not streamlined, will not dilute the statutory provisions of filing the appeal against the impugned order.
5. Since we do not find that there is any jurisdictional error committed by the appellate authority and the order is bereft of any jurisdiction, all the contentions which are raised before us in the writ petition, will always be taken care by the Tribunal. Under the circumstances, the present writ petition stands rejected since the petitioner is having alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.
6. At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Patel requested that in case the Tribunal does not take up the appeal within a reasonable time, liberty may be reserved in favour of the petitioner to challenge the recovery proceedings before this Court.
7. We clarify that it is always open for the petitioner to make appropriate application/ prayer for staying the recovery and in case the Tribunal does not pass any order on the application or such prayer or passes an order rejecting the such prayer, it is always open for the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before this Court.
