2026 (5) TMI 150

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... For the Respondents: Mr Amit Kumar, Sr. SC (CGST), Mr Anurag Vijay, Jr. SC (CGST). JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the Order-In-Original dated 29.09.2025 inter alia on the ground of delayed adjudication. 3. The learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner pointed out that so-called notice in this case was issued on 29.09.2020, but the Order-In-Original has been made only on 29.09.2025. He submitted that such a delayed adjudication by itself, vitiates that the order-in-original dated 29.09.2025. 4. The learned Senior Advocate referred to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. GMR Airport Infrastructure Ltd. In Petition for Special ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ever, submitted that should the Hon'ble Supreme Court decide against the assessee on the issue of delayed adjudication, the Petitioner would be agreeable to be relegated to the appeal remedy to agitate the other challenges to the impugned order in the original, and an undertaking to this effect could be recorded on behalf of the petitioner. 8. Mr Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that there was no merit in the petitioner's contentions. In any event, the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy, which cannot be bypassed. He submitted that in similar matters, including the case of M/s Navjeevan Construction Vs. In Union of India & Anr., W.P.(T) No. 2462 of 2026, this Court declined to entertain the writ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he subject in question, the hearing may be deferred till we take an appropriate call in the matter." 13. This petition was filed on 11.03.2026, i.e., about 10 months after the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 02.05.2025. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's order extends some protection even to matters before the Tribunal. 14. This petition is yet to be admitted. This petition is not restricted to challenging the Order-In-Original only on the ground of delayed adjudication. Admittedly, several other grounds have been raised. 15. If ultimately, the Hon'ble Supreme Court holds that orders made after unreasonable delay can be quashed on the said ground alone, then perhaps, the petitioner can succeed in this petition. However, if the Hon....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dy been rejected. Based upon the audited accounts alone, we cannot accept the petitioner's contention that the petitioner is unable to pay the pre-deposit amount, and to that extent, the alternate remedy is not efficacious. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be exercised to frustrate the statutory regime provided in the Statute. 19. The deviation from the practice of relegating the parties to the alternate remedy, particularly in fiscal matters, is to be exercised sparingly by way of an exception and not as a rule. Therefore, unless an extraordinary case is made out, there is no question of bypassing this practice of exhaustion of alternate remedy by way of self-imposed restriction. 20. In the case of Oberoi....