Dismissed

Synergy Baxi Logistics (P) Ltd. v. Union of India

Rajasthan HC2 Aug 2024CW/11557/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a GST/Excise order by direct writ petition despite an available appellate remedy, claiming coverage by earlier CESTAT and Supreme Court orders. The court declined to entertain the petition on the principle of exhausting alternative remedies, dismissed it without commenting on merits, and granted three months' liberty to appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

Synergy Baxi Logistics (P) Ltd. Vs Union of India — GST and Indirect Tax | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:32945-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11557/2024

¶4

Synergy Baxi Logistics (P) Ltd., Having Its Address At A-12, Baxi Cottage, Burmese Colony, Jawahar Nagar By-Pass, Jaipur Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Namit Baxi

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi.

¶8

Additional Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur

¶9

Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Commissionerate, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner	:	Mr. Nikhil Gupta Advocate with Mr. Rohan Chattar Advocate & Ms. Apeksha Bapna Advocate
For Respondents	:	Mr. Ajay Shukla Advocate Mr. Arnav Singh Advocate on behalf of
		Mr. Sandeep Pathak Advocate

¶12

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶13

Order

¶14

02/08/2024

¶15

Though there exists alternative remedy of appeal to the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order impugned has been passed without proper consideration of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as also the order which has been passed by the CESTAT on 26.11.2019 and order dated 10.06.2022 passed on rectification of mistake application.

¶16

[2024:RJ-JP:32945-DB]

¶17

[CW-11557/2024]

¶18

(2 of 2)

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that though the authority has examined the orders impugned as also the judgments and arrived at a conclusion, whether the case of the present petitioner is covered by the orders referred to herein above is essentially a matter of consideration by the Appellate Authority.

¶20

We find that the petitioner has filed present petition directly before this Court without availing alternative remedy of appeal not on the ground of absence of jurisdiction and/or violation of principles of natural justice, but mainly on the ground that it has a strong case in its favour and its case is covered by earlier orders of CESTAT and judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶21

Without commenting on the merits of the case, as a matter of principle, we are not inclined to entertain this petition and leave the petitioner to work out statutory remedy available to it under the law.

¶22

Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶23

Considering that the petition was filed before expiry of period of limitation, the petitioner is granted liberty to avail the alternative remedy of appeal within a period of three months from today.

¶24

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶25

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ

¶26

Manoj Narwani/ARTI SHARMA /1

Synergy Baxi Logistics (P) Ltd. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Synergy Baxi Logistics (P) Ltd. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Rajasthan Vs Hansraj Meena S/O Shri Ramniwas Meena

Lempus Kyari Fair Price Shop Vs Additional Food Commissioner

Sudhir Yadav S/O Shri Veer Narayan Yadav Vs the Rajasthan High Court

Deepa D/O Dwarika Tiwari Vs the Registrar General

Vishram Singh Meena S/O Shri Phool Chand Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

M/S Ankita Construction Vs State of Rajasthan