M/S Shree Balaji Metal Works Vs Union of India — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

M/S Shree Balaji Metal Works Vs Union of India — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal against the order dated 28.05.2025 before the Appellate Authority; the Appellate Authority to hear the appeal on merits without objection of limitation, subject to pre-deposit as required, after giving opportunity of hearing to both parties, and to decide the appeal within four months.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition is admissible, or whether the petitioner should be relegated to the alternative efficacious statutory appellate remedy under the CGST Act, given that the grounds raised (including the laconic Section 74 proceedings and non-application of Sections 50, 65 and 122) are factual in nature.

Court's answer

The grounds raised by the petitioner are all factual in nature and can best be adjudicated by the Appellate Authority after considering the record; accordingly the petitioner is relegated to the appellate remedy instead of the writ jurisdiction.

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner was ready to deposit 10% of the demand amount, the appeal could be heard on merits (pre-deposit being the condition for entertaining the statutory appeal).

Key takeaways

The petitioner was permitted to file an appeal against the order dated 28.05.2025; the Appellate Authority was directed to consider the appeal on merits without dwelling on limitation, subject to pre-deposit as required, to give both parties an opportunity of hearing, and to decide the appeal within four months.ratio¶¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench, DB) disposed of a writ petition challenging proceedings under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, holding that the grounds raised (orders allegedly laconic and passed without considering Sections 50, 65 and 122; amounts equivalent to 100% of the demand blocked in the petitioner's bank account) are factual in nature and best adjudicated by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner was permitted to file an appeal against the order dated 28.05.2025, subject to pre-deposit (10% of the demand), with the Appellate Authority directed to hear both parties and decide the appeal on merits within four months without dwelling on limitation.

[2025:RJ-JP:47891-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13625/2025

M/s Shree Balaji Metal Works, Having Principal Place Of Business At Gautam School Street, P R Marg, Ajmer, Rajasthan, 305001 Having Gstn- 08Aasfs7488J1Z3 Through Its Partner Abhinav Baldi, S/o Ramakant Baldi, Aged About 38 Years, Residing At H.no. 4, Baldi Sadan, Basant Colony, Savitri School, Ashok Marg, Ajmer.

----Petitioner

Versus

Union Of India, Through Revenue Secretary Union Of India, Through The Revenue Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi- 110001.

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Commissioner Of State Tax, Rajasthan Goods and Service Tax, Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur

Joint Commissioner (State Tax), Circle-A, Ajmer Rajasthan, Room No. 107, Kar Bhawan, Todarmal Marg, Ajmer (Raj.)

Branch Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank, Kutchery Road, Ganesh Bhawan, 429/A/11, Kutchery Road, Ajmer 305001

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)	: Ms.Shradha Agarwal, Adv. with
	Mr.Aryan Singh Chouhan,Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: Ms.Mahi Yadav, AAG with Mr.Rohan
	Mittal,Adv. & Mr.Aditya Godara,Adv.

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Order

26/11/2025

A preliminary objection has been raised by the Department with regard to the admissibility of the present petition.

[2025:RJ-JP:47891-DB]

[CW-13625/2025]

(2 of 3)

Learned Additional Advocate General Ms.Mahi Yadav appearing for the respondent-State submitted that alternative efficacious statutory remedy is available under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act’) where factual aspects can be examined by the Appellate Authority in relation to action taken by the respondents under Section 74 of the Act. The case of the petitioner is that the proceedings under Section 74 of the Act are wholly laconic and even the orders do not reflect the reason for taking up a matter under Section 74 of the Act as there is no fraudulent misstatement or suppression on the part of the appellant.

It is also alleged that the order dated 28.05.2018 has been passed by the respondent without taking into consideration the provisions of Sections 50, 65 and 122 of the Act.

Admittedly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that more than 50% of the amount deposited in the account, which amounts to 100% of the demand, has been blocked in the account of the petitioner which has resulted the petitioner being suffered in the business.

Having noticed the preliminary objection of learned AAG and submission of the petitioner, we are of the firm view that so far as the grounds raised by the petitioner are concerned, the same are all factual in nature and can be best adjudicated after considering the record by the Appellate Authority. As the petitioner is ready to deposit the 10% of the demand amount, the appeal can be heard on merits.

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:47891-DB]

[CW-13625/2025]

Taking into consideration the aforesaid aspects, we allow the petitioner to file an appeal and if such an appeal is preferred against the order dated 28.05.2025, the Appellate Authority shall consider the same on merits without dwelling into the issue of limitation, subject to pre-deposit as required. The Appellate Authority shall give an opportunity of hearing to both the parties and decide the appeal within a period of four months from today.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

(MANEESH SHARMA), J

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ

Himanshu Soni/9