[2025:RJ-JP:47891-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13625/2025 M/s Shree Balaji Metal Works, Having Principal Place Of Business At Gautam School Street, P R Marg, Ajmer, Rajasthan, 305001 Having Gstn- 08Aasfs7488J1Z3 Through Its Partner Abhinav Baldi, S/o Ramakant Baldi, Aged About 38 Years, Residing At H.no. 4, Baldi Sadan, Basant Colony, Savitri School, Ashok Marg, Ajmer. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Revenue Secretary Union Of India, Through The Revenue Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi- 110001. 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Commissioner Of State Tax, Rajasthan Goods and Service Tax, Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur 3. Joint Commissioner (State Tax), Circle-A, Ajmer Rajasthan, Room No. 107, Kar Bhawan, Todarmal Marg, Ajmer (Raj.) 4. Branch Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank, Kutchery Road, Ganesh Bhawan, 429/A/11, Kutchery Road, Ajmer 305001 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms.Shradha Agarwal, Adv. with Mr.Aryan Singh Chouhan, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms.Mahi Yadav, AAG with Mr.Rohan Mittal, Adv. & Mr.Aditya Godara, Adv. HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 26/11/2025 1. A preliminary objection has been raised by the Department with regard to the admissibility of the present petition. [2025:RJ-JP:47891-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-13625/2025] 2. Learned Additional Advocate General Ms.Mahi Yadav appearing for the respondent-State submitted that alternative efficacious statutory remedy is available under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act’) where factual aspects can be examined by the Appellate Authority in relation to action taken by the respondents under Section 74 of the Act. The case of the petitioner is that the proceedings under Section 74 of the Act are wholly laconic and even the orders do not reflect the reason for taking up a matter under Section 74 of the Act as there is no fraudulent misstatement or suppression on the part of the appellant. 3. It is also alleged that the order dated 28.05.2018 has been passed by the respondent without taking into consideration the provisions of Sections 50, 65 and 122 of the Act. 4. Admittedly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that more than 50% of the amount deposited in the account, which amounts to 100% of the demand, has been blocked in the account of the petitioner which has resulted the petitioner being suffered in the business. 5. Having noticed the preliminary objection of learned AAG and submission of the petitioner, we are of the firm view that so far as the grounds raised by the petitioner are concerned, the same are all factual in nature and can be best adjudicated after considering the record by the Appellate Authority. As the petitioner is ready to deposit the 10% of the demand amount, the appeal can be heard on merits. [2025:RJ-JP:47891-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-13625/2025] 6. Taking into consideration the aforesaid aspects, we allow the petitioner to file an appeal and if such an appeal is preferred against the order dated 28.05.2025, the Appellate Authority shall consider the same on merits without dwelling into the issue of limitation, subject to pre-deposit as required. The Appellate Authority shall give an opportunity of hearing to both the parties and decide the appeal within a period of four months from today. 7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (MANEESH SHARMA), J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ Himanshu Soni/9