Page No.# 1/4 GAHC020000062024 2025:GAU-NL:520 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/1/2024 M/S ECI ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION CO LTD FLAT NO. 402, 4TH FLOOR, JITENDER TOWER, OLD DAILY MARKET, DIMAPUR-797112 NAGALAND REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER-FINANCE AND ACCOUNTS, SRI G.N. RAMANUJA RAO, R/O ADITYA NAGAR, HMT HILLS, JUKAPALLY, HYDERABAD VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPT. OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 2:THE COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE DIMAPUR COMMISSIONERATE 5TH FLOOR AGARWAL TOWER NST COLONY CITY TOWER AREA I. VIKHESHE SUMI ROAD DIMAPUR NAGALAND 3:THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DIMAPUR COMMISSIONERATE 5TH FLOOR AGARWAL TOWER NST COLONY CITY TOWER AREA Page No.# 2/4 I. VIKHESHE SUMI ROAD DIMAPUR NAGALAN Advocate for the Petitioner : DR. ANKIT TODI, MEDO VERO,PFOSEKHO PFOTTE Advocate for the Respondent : A K MISHRA, BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER Date : 27-10-2025 Heard Dr. Ankit Todi, learned counsel for the petitioner who is aggrieved by an order, in original, dated 23.08.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner, GST, Dimapur. Also heard Shri. Z. Kulnu, learned Standing counsel, CBIC. 2. It has been contended that the petitioner is a constituent of a joint venture which was entrusted with the work of construction of the national highway from Dimapur to Kohima. It is also submitted that the 2 (two) constituents, namely the petitioner, its partner RAMKY, and the joint venture as such, had 3 (three) separate registration under the GST. While the case of the petitioner is that the levy under the GST has been made from the joint venture, a separate levy has been sought to be made from the petitioner which would amount to double taxation. The learned counsel has also raised a serious issue on the jurisdiction of the authority who had passed the impugned order. 3. Shri. Kulnu, learned Standing counsel has however raised a Page No.# 3/4 preliminary objection that the order impugned is an appealable order. By drawing the attention of this Court to the impugned order, the learned Standing counsel has submitted that the aforesaid aspect has in fact been clearly reflected in the order which not only has apprised the assessee about the provision for appeal, but has also mentioned the appellate authority. 4. Dr. Todi, learned counsel has however responded that since a jurisdictional issue is involved, there may not be any bar in approaching a writ court. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, while this Court would agree with the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that there may not be an absolute bar in approaching the writ court, more particularly in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirpool Coorporatin Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors reported in (1998) 8 SCC, the said jurisdictional issue can also be raised before the appellate authority. This Court is also of the view that the dispute would be with regard to technical aspects wherein expertise knowledge would be required and for that reason only, an appellate forum has been provided in the stature holding the field. 6. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that instead of the dispute being raised in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the same be raised before the appellate authority in terms of the statute holding the field. Page No.# 4/4 7. At this stage, Dr. Todi, learned counsel has expressed that the issue of limitation may come in. This Court, in exercise of its equity jurisdiction directs that if the appeal is preferred within a period of 45 (forty five) days from today, the aspect of limitation would not come into the way of its adjudication on merits. 8. This Court also clarifies that while the writ petition is being disposed of, no opinion on the inter-se merits has been rendered by this Court and the appeal is to be decided on its own merits. 9. Since an interim order is operating, to balance the equities, it is provided that till the appeal is disposed of, the interim order passed by this Court on 18.01.2024, shall be kept operative. 10. Writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant