Jammu and Kashmir High Court
WRIT PETITION 859/2024 on 17 October 2025
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKHAT JAMMU
WP(C) No. 859/2024
…..Petitioner/Appellant
M/S Star Industries IGC Samba J&K
Through: Mr. Gautam Chug, Advocate. (Th. V.C)
vs
.…. Respondent(s)
UT of J&K
Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG with Ms. Priyanka Bhat, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
ORDER17.10.2025
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. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the respondent is appealable under Section 107 SGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). In the presence of statutory alternative remedy available under the Act, there is no warrant for entertaining this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. The Apex Court in the latest judgement in the case of “Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and Ors Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd.”2020 AIR (SC) 2819has reiterated the legal position to the extent that though the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is very wide, yet the Court must exercise self-imposed restraint and should not entertain the writ petition, if an alternative efficacious remedy is available to the aggrieved person.
3. In the instant case, the petitioner has ventured to file this petition by alleging that the order impugned is in violation of principles of natural justice. We have gone through the impugned order and we find that not only the petitioner was put on notice by the respondent, but he also submitted his reply. alleging that the order impugned is in violation of principles of natural justice. We have gone through the impugned order and we find that not only the petitioner was put on notice by the respondent, but he also submitted his reply.
4. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that order impugned is in patent violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, this Court may exercise its discretion and entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. patent violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, this Court may exercise its discretion and entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. Be that as it may, in view of the settle legal position, we are not inclined to entertain this petition and rather relegate the petitioner to the remedy of appeal under the Act. to entertain this petition and rather relegate the petitioner to the remedy of appeal under the Act.
6. Needless to say, that in case the petitioner chooses to file an appeal, the period spent by him in this Court shall be eschewed from computation of limitation. period spent by him in this Court shall be eschewed from computation of limitation.
7. Disposed of.
(Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Judge Judge Judge Jammu 17.10.2025 Rahul