Ms Prince Pipes and Fittings Limited Vs Additonal… — GST and Indirect Tax | Uttarakhand HC (2025)

Ms Prince Pipes and Fittings Limited Vs Additonal… — GST and Indirect Tax | Uttarakhand HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to invoke Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for rectification before the Adjudicating Authority within two weeks of receipt of the certified copy of the order; any such application to be considered and disposed of on merits; future appeals/remedies to be decided on merits without influence from this Court's observations; no order as to costs; pending applications, if any, stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the show-cause notice should be entertained notwithstanding the alternate remedy available under the Act, given the petitioner's grounds that its detailed reply/rebuttal with documents was not considered and that the Adjudicating Authority travelled beyond the parameters of the show-cause notice. +1 more

Court's answer

Neither of the petitioner's grounds enables this Court to ignore the alternate remedy available under the Act; both grounds can be urged before, and lie within the competence of, the Appellate Authority.

Ratio / Principle

Entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 would require this Court to appreciate not only the merits of the show-cause notice but also the merits of the reply and the merits of the adjudication order, which is the domain of the Appellate Authority; hence the Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition.

Key takeaways

It is open to the petitioner to exercise the option under Section 161 of the CGST Act, 2017; if an application invoking Section 161 is preferred within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, it shall be considered and disposed of by the Adjudicating Authority on merits.ratio¶21
The order shall not be construed as determination of the matter on merits; in the event of any appeal or remedy being availed of, it shall be considered and disposed of on the merits of the case without being influenced by any of the observations made in the instant writ petition.obiter¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (M/B) No. 190 of 2025 — M/s Prince Pipes and Fittings Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner CGST — High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital (Division Bench: G. Narendar, C.J., author; Alok Mahra, J.), decided 09 June 2025: The Court declined to entertain a writ petition impugning a CGST show-cause notice, holding that the petitioner's grounds — that its detailed reply/rebuttal supported with documents was not considered by the Adjudicating Authority, and that the Authority travelled beyond the parameters of the show-cause notice — can both be urged before, and lie within the competence of, the Appellate Authority under the Act; an Article 226 exercise would require appreciating the merits of the show-cause notice, the reply and the adjudication order, which is the domain of the Appellate Authority. Liberty reserved: the petitioner may invoke Section 161, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for rectification before the Adjudicating Authority within two weeks of receipt of the certified copy of the order, and any such application shall be disposed of on merits. The order expressly does not determine the matter on merits; any appeal or remedy availed shall be decided uninfluenced by the observations herein. No order as to costs; pending applications closed.

2025:UHC:4677-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G. NARENDAR AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA

WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 190 OF 2025

09^TH JUNE, 2025

M/s Prince Pipes and Fittings Ltd. …… Petitioner

Versus

Additional Commissioner CGST …… Respondent

, l

Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Yogendra Aldak, learned counsel with Mr. Tarun Pande, learned counsel

Counsel for the respondent : Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri G. Narendar)

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the show-cause notice has been impugned in the instant proceedings on the premise that the detailed reply / rebuttal supported with documents have not been considered by the Adjudicating Authority, and that the Adjudicating Authority has

1

2025:UHC:4677-DB

also travelled beyond the parameters of the show-cause notice.

In our considered opinion neither a ground which would enable this Court to ignore the alternate remedy available under the Act. Both grounds that can be urged and which the Appellate Authority is competent to consider. That apart if the submissions of the petitioner are taken on face value this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be required to appreciate not only the merits of the show-cause notice but also the merits of the reply and the merits of the adjudication order which is the domain of the Appellate Authority. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition.

At this stage the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is vested with a right under Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which enables the assessee to invoke the provisions of Section 161 and prayed for rectification with the Adjudicating Authority.

In the event, the petitioner desires to exercise the option available under Section 161, it is open to the petitioner to do so subject to the petitioner exercising the option within a period of two weeks. If such an application is preferred invoking provisions of Section 161 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, the same shall

2

2025:UHC:4677-DB

be considered and disposed of by the Adjudicating Authority on merits.

The above order shall not be construed as the determination of the matter on merits, and, in the event of any appeal or remedy being availed of, the same shall be considered and disposed of on the merits of the case without being influenced by any of the observations made in the instant writ petition.

Reserving such liberty the writ petition stands ordered accordingly.

8) There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, pending application, if any, shall stand closed.

________________

G. NARENDAR, C.J.

____________ ALOK MAHRA, J.

Dt: 09^TH JUNE, 2025

Negi

Digitally signed by HIMANSHU NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF HIMANS UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bb3b60774012c1ef1dae20d13aaf1 16e73351fdaf6878326386908a7f90d5757, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=75BD9D0FB7F4A80990FC51A 722A6BC552D470EB4FD2F88DDF7C18DB2A HU NEGI 1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI Date: 2025.06.16 10:54:24 +05'30'

3