[2026:RJ-JP:17178-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6957/2026 M/s Orient Craft Limited, Gstin 08Aaaco0068M1Zb, Through Its Authorised Representative Of The Petitioner Company, Sh. Umesh Kumar Upadhiyay Aged About 55, Resident Of House No. 15, Near Radha Swami Bhawan, Gangavihar, Dinpur, Na- gafgarh, South West Delhi 110043 ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Finance Secretary, Fi- nanace Department, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department (Ra- jasthan Goods And Service Tax Department), Jaipur, Ra- jasthan. 3. Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax Circle-C, Ac/cto Bhi- wadi, Rajasthan. 4. Deputy Commissioner - A, Business Audit Wing 4, Ra- jasthan State Tax, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 5. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, Cabinet Secretariat, Raisina Hill, New Delhi 110001 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shaubhik Gupta with Mr. Mohit Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG with Mr. Rohan Agarwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 23/04/2026 Ms. Mahi Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgment/order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter M/s Shree Balaji Infratech & Anr. Vs. State of [2026:RJ-JP:17178-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-6957/2026] Rajasthan & Ors., (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11000/2024) decided on 26.07.2024, wherein it has been held as under:- “The petitioner has prayed for reliefs both against the assessment order as also against an order of cancellation of the registration. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner(CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors. Versus M/s. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited: (2020) 19 SCC 681, wherein, chal- lenge to the order of assessment, with- out having filed any statutory appeal ei- ther within the stipulated period of limi- tation or within the extended period of limitation, has attained finality and, therefore, to that extent no relief can be granted to the petitioners. However, the petitioners have also clubbed the reliefs seeking to challenge an order of cancellation of the registra- tion. We are of the view that the petitioners could not have clubbed two different and independent cause of actions in one pe- tition. Therefore, this petition is dis- missed with liberty to file a fresh petition to challenge the order dated 10.11.2023 and subsequent orders in the matter of cancellation of registration. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.” [2026:RJ-JP:17178-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-6957/2026] After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the peti- tioner wants to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to avail alternative remedy before the appropriate authority. In that view of the matter, the present writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to avail alternative remedy in accordance with law. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Upendra Pratap Singh /33