M/s. Shradha Marketing v. State of H.P & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 30 Mar 2026
- Bench
- VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, RANJAN SHARMA
- Neutral citation
- 2026:HHC:9382
Provisions considered
- Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ss. 107, 112
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. As per Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner is to file an appeal before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, ( 2026:HHC:9382 ) 2 which is now functional. Accordingly, the present…
Judgment
Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Goverdhan Lal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Sushant Keprate, Additional Advocate General. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral) This petition has been filed assailing the order dated
23.10.2025 (Annexure P-1), passed by respondent No. 3 – Additional Commissioner, State Taxes & Excise-cum-Appellate Authority, in an appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
As per Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner is to file an appeal before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, ( 2026:HHC:9382 ) 2 which is now functional. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the aforesaid remedy for redressal of his grievance, if so advised. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge. 30th March, 2026 (Shamsh Tabrez) (Ranjan Sharma), Judge.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — ss. 107, 112.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Himachal Pradesh High Court, on 30 Mar 2026. The bench was VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, RANJAN SHARMA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.