Case Law Details
Windlass Developer Private Limited Vs Additional Commissioner CGST (Uttarakhand High Court)
Writ Petition Against ₹53.94 Crore GST Demand Dismissed Due to Alternate Appeal Remedy: Uttarakhand HC
The Uttarakhand High Court considered a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original dated 30.03.2026 passed under Sections 76 and 74(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, fastening a tax liability of ₹53,94,34,346 on the petitioner. The petitioner acknowledged the availability of an appeal under Section 107 of the Act but alleged breach of the principles of natural justice. On being questioned by the Court regarding the alleged violation, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the impugned order had been preceded by an audit without providing the tentative findings of the audit team.
The petitioner also contended that Section 74(9) had been wrongly invoked and challenged the order on the quantum of demand and other aspects relating to its merits. The High Court declined to examine these issues in view of the availability of the statutory appellate remedy. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107, if so advised. All pending applications were also disposed of.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order-in-original dated 30.03.2026, passed under Section 76 and Section 74(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, whereby a tax liability of Rs. 53,94,34,346/- has been fastened upon the petitioner.
2.mAs in the writ petition it is alleged that, although remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act is available, but there has been breach of principles of natural justice, therefore, we inquired from the learned counsel for the petitioner, as to how there has been violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Mr. Pulak Raj Mullick, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, tried to assail the order on merits by contending that the impugned order was preceded by an audit, and without providing the tentative findings of the audit team, the order has been passed. He also tried to contend that Section 74(9) of the Act would not be applicable, and has been wrongly taken recourse to while passing the order. He also tried to assail the order on the aspect of quantum, and also on certain other aspects, which relate to the merits of the order, which we are not inclined to go into, in view of availability of alternative remedy of appeal.
4. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of appeal, if so advised.
5. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
Author Bio
