Uttarakhand High Court
WPMB/536/2026 of M/S WINDLASS DEVELOPER PRIVATE LIMITED Vs THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CGST on 8 July 2026
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY 08TH JULY, 2026 WRIT PETITION (M/B) No. 536 OF 2026 1: M/s Windlass Developer Private Limited --Petitioner Versus 1: The Additional Commissioner
UKHC010111242026
2026:UHC:5552-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
08TH JULY, 2026
WRIT PETITION (M/B) No. 536 OF 2026
1: M/s Windlass Developer Private Limited
--Petitioner
Versus
1: The Additional Commissioner CGST
2: Additional Director
--Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner.
: Mr. Pulak Raj Mullick and Mr. Anmol
Gupta, learned counsel.
Counsel for the respondents.
: Ms. Riddhi Joshi, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel.
JUDGMENT : (per Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
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. As 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.
UKHC010111242026
2026:UHC:5552-DB
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.
______________________ MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.
___________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dt: 08th July, 2026 Rahul
RAHUL PRAJAPATI Digitally signed by RAHUL PRAJAPATI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=aa4fa3bee6691397758b14516ed3e66e6 1bf4c848741983ed8c39e4145cf1dab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=303B55CC3063D34AC45BF8A192 FCAD15C390A1AAD7B39857D2540AE4C28A489 8, cn=RAHUL PRAJAPATI Date: 2026.07.08 14:56:04 +05'30'