M/S WINDLASS DEVELOPER PRIVATE LIMITED v. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CGST
WPMB/536/2026 · 2026-07-08
Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, Subhash Upadhyay
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 7813 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 7813 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
UKHC010111242026
2026:UHC:5552-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
08TH JULY, 2026
WRIT PETITION (M/B) No. 536 OF 2026
1: M/s Windlass Developer Private Limited --Petitioner Versus
1: The Additional Commissioner CGST 2: Additional Director --Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner.
: Mr. Pulak Raj Mullick and Mr. Anmol Gupta, learned counsel.
Counsel for the respondents. : Ms. Riddhi Joshi, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel.
JUDGMENT : (per Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
1.
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order-in-original dated 30.03.2026, passed under Section 76 and Section 74(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, whereby a tax liability of Rs. 53,94,34,346/- has been fastened upon the petitioner.
2.
As in the writ petition it is alleged that, although remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act is available, but there has been breach of principles of natural justice, therefore, we inquired from the learned counsel for the petitioner, as to how there has been violation of principles of natural justice.
1
UKHC010111242026
2026:UHC:5552-DB
3.
Mr. Pulak Raj Mullick, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, tried to assail the order on merits by contending that the impugned order was preceded by an audit, and without providing the tentative findings of the audit team, the order has been passed. He also tried to contend that Section 74(9) of the Act would not be applicable, and has been wrongly taken recourse to while passing the order. He also tried to assail the order on the aspect of quantum, and also on certain other aspects, which relate to the merits of the order, which we are not inclined to go into, in view of availability of alternative remedy of appeal.
4.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of appeal, if so advised.
5.
All pending applications stand
disposed of accordingly.
______________________ MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.
___________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dt: 08th July, 2026 Rahul 2
RAHUL PRAJAPATI Digitally signed by RAHUL PRAJAPATI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=aa4fa3bee6691397758b14516ed3e66e6 1bf4c848741983ed8c39e4145cf1dab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=303B55CC3063D34AC45BF8A192 FCAD15C390A1AAD7B39857D2540AE4C28A489 8, cn=RAHUL PRAJAPATI Date: 2026.07.08 14:56:04 +05'30'