Writ Dismissed as Facts Disputed | HC on Article 226
- Blog|News|GST & Customs|
- < 1 minute
- By Chetan Kulasri
- |
- Last Updated on 30 July, 2025
Latest from Taxmann
Case Details: Akshat Steel vs. State of Chhattisgarh - [2025] 176 taxmann.com 654 (Chhattisgarh)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Ramesh Sinha, CJ and Bibhu Datta Guru, J.
- Rajat Agrawal, Adv. for the Petitioner.
- Y.S. Thakur, Addl. Advocate General and Animesh Tiwari, Adv. for the Respondent.
Fact of the Case
The petitioner filed a writ of mandamus seeking clearance of an admissible amount along with GST and interest. The dispute pertained to demand not involving fraud or suppression. The authorities disputed the petitioner’s entitlement to such amount, raising contested factual issues. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court for consideration under Article 226 of the Constitution
HC Held
The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the presence of disputed questions of fact bars the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226. Relying on the ruling in Sai Info Services v. State of Chhattisgarh [2025] 176 taxmann.com 699 (Chhatisgarh), it was observed that such disputes must be adjudicated before appropriate statutory authorities and not under writ jurisdiction.
List of Cases Reviewed
List of Cases Referred
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
CA | CS | CMA
