Paramount Tea Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India And 3 Ors

Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010126512026

undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3399/2026
PARAMOUNT TEA MARKETING PVT. LTD.
3RD FLOOR, DEKA PREMISES, CHRISTIAN BASTI, GS ROAD, GUWAHATI-
781005, IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM. REPRESENTED
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI M. C.
KARUMBAIAHH, SON OF SRI M. U. CALAPPA, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
1B, MAGNUM RESIDENCY, BAIKUNTHA PATH, GEETANAGAR, GUWAHATI
781024, KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK,
NEW DELHI
2:THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE
GUWAHATI COMMISSIONERATE GST BHAWAN
KEDAR ROAD
MACHKHOWA
GUWAHATI 781001
ASSAM
3:THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)
CGST
CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS
GUWAHATI
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)
CGST
CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS
3RD FLOOR
GST BHAWAN
KEDAR ROAD

Page No.# 2/6
MACHKHOWA
GUWAHATI 781001
ASSAM
4:THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DIVISION -II
CGST AND CX
GUWAHATI
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CENTRAL GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE
DIVISION- II
GUWAHATI
2ND FLOOR
GST BHAWAN
KEDAR ROAD
MACHKHOWA GUWAHATI 781001 ASSA
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

Advocate for the petitioner (s) : Dr. A. Todi, Advocate

Advocate for the respondent (s): Ms. P. Borah, CGC
Mr. S. C. Keyal, Sr. Advocate
Mr. K. Jain, Advocate

Date on which judgment is reserved : NA

Date of pronouncement of judgment : 05.11.2026

Whether the pronouncement is of the
Operative part of the judgment? : Yes

Whether the full judgment has been
Pronounced? : No

Page No.# 3/6

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. A. Todi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the Petitioner. Ms. P. Borah, the learned CGC appears on
behalf of Respondent No. 1 and Mr. S. C. Keyal, the learned
Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. K. Jain, the learned counsel,
appears on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
2. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the Order-
in-Original dated 07.02.2025 passed by the Assistant
Commissioner, Division-II, CGST & CX, Guwahati under the
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, “the Act of
2017”) as well as the Order-in-Appeal dated 30.04.2026 issued
by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Central Excise
& Customs, Guwahati under the Act of 2017.
3. It is the specific case of the Petitioner that the initiation of
the proceedings under Section 73 of the Act of 2017 as well as
the Order-in-Original and the Appellate Order calls for
interference by this Court in as much as the Petitioner who was
the purchaser has duly paid the GST to the supplier and on
account of the fault of the supplier for not depositing the said
GST or showing it in his returns, proceedings under Section 73 of
the Act of 2017 could not have been initiated in as much as a
case for tax not paid or short paid or input tax wrongly availed or

Page No.# 4/6
utilized, does not arise in the present proceedings.
4. Mr. S. C. Keyal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 submitted that there is
no jurisdictional issue involved for this Court to entertain the
present writ petition in as much as an Appeal lies to the
Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the Act of 2017 against
the Appellate Order dated 30.04.2026. He, therefore, submitted
that when an alternative and efficacious remedy is available, this
Court may not like to entertain the instant writ petition. Further
to that, the learned Senior Counsel also submitted that if a
person is aggrieved by an order of the Appellate Tribunal, there
is a further remedy to this Court under Section 117 of the Act of
2017.
5. Dr. A. Todi, on the other hand, submitted that in terms of
Section 112(1) of the Act of 2017, the period of limitation is three
months from the date on which the order sought to be appealed
against is communicated to the person preferring the Appeal,
and in the instant case, the Petitioner instead of availing the
Appellate provision, had approached this Court within the period
of limitation provided under Section 112(1) of the Act of 2017.
He, therefore, submitted that it cannot be said that the Petitioner
as on date has an alternative and efficacious remedy.

Page No.# 5/6
6. This Court has given an anxious consideration to the
materials on record and also the respective submissions made by
the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The issue involved in the present proceedings is an issue as
to whether a case is made out against the Petitioner under
Section 73 of the Act of 2017 taking into account that it is the
claim of the Petitioner that the Petitioner has already paid the tax
to the supplier, and the supplier has not shown the same in his
GST returns. The question further arises is as to whether the
Petitioner can claim the input tax credit. These are questions of
facts which the Appellate Tribunal would be in a position to
adjudicate and no jurisdictional questions arise for this Court to
entertain the instant writ petition.
8. This Court is also mindful of the fact that if this Court has to
relegate the Petitioner to the Appellate Tribunal, the Petitioner
should be given an opportunity to file an Appeal and the period
of limitation as prescribed under Section 112(1) of the Act of
2017 should not act as a hindrance, more so, taking into account
that the Petitioner has approached this Court within the period of
limitation as prescribed under Section 112(1) of the Act of 2017
by filing the present writ petition.
9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition therefore stands

Page No.# 6/6
disposed of with the following observations and directions:-
(i) This Court, for the reasons aforementioned in the body
of the judgment is not inclined to entertain the instant writ
petition on the ground that the Petitioner has an alternative
and efficacious remedy. Accordingly, the writ petition stands
dismissed.
(ii) The Petitioner is given the liberty to prefer an Appeal
under Section 112 of the Act of 2017 against the Appellate
Order dated 30.04.2026 passed by the Appellate Authority,
i.e., the Respondent No.3.
(iii) It is further observed that if the Petitioner files the
Appeal under Section 112 of the Act of 2017 within a period
of one month from the date of the present judgment, the
learned Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 109 of
the Act of 2017 shall entertain the Appeal without insisting
on the question of limitation and decide the Appeal on
merits.
(iv) There shall be no order as to costs.


JUDGE
Pradip Kumar Kalita
Digitally signed by Pradip Kumar Kalita
Date: 2026.11.05 18:32:47 +05'30'
Comparing Assistant