Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked when an alternative statutory appeal remedy is available against an assessment order.

By | May 21, 2026
0 Comment

Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked when an alternative statutory appeal remedy is available against an assessment order.

Issue

Whether a taxpayer can maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge a final GST assessment order by claiming that the initial notice was merely a summary and lacked proper statutory elements, when they have already actively participated in the proceedings by filing a reply.

Facts

  • The appellant challenged an adverse judgment of a Single Judge regarding a GST assessment order (Ext.P9).

  • The appellant argued that document Ext.P2 was not a valid notice under Section 74 and that no proper statutory notice had been served before the assessment order was passed.

  • The appellant further contended that document Ext.P3 was merely a electronic summary of the show-cause notice and did not satisfy the rigid legal requirements of Section 74.

  • On facts, records showed that the appellant had previously submitted a formal reply (Ext.P5) wherein they explicitly referred to Exts.P3 and P4 as the show-cause notice and subsequent reminder issued by the authority.

  • The Single Judge had earlier dismissed the writ petition, prompting this appeal.

Decision

  • Nature of Communication Clarified: Held, yes. The division bench noted that the Single Judge’s finding treating Ext.P2 as a proper Section 74 notice was incorrect, as Ext.P2 was merely an administrative intimation or communication.

  • Validity of Form DRC-01: Held, yes. The court observed that Ext.P3 prima facie satisfied the legal requirements of a statutory notice under Section 74 because it was formally issued in Form GST DRC-01 by invoking Rule 142(1)(a).

  • Participation Bars Writ Intervention: Held, yes. Since the appellant actively participated in the adjudication process and submitted a detailed reply to the Ext.P3 notice, their technical grievance that it was “only a summary” is a matter that should be evaluated by the regular appellate authority.

  • Relegation to Statutory Remedy: Held, yes. In the absence of clear proof demonstrating that the final assessment order (Ext.P9) was completely void or passed entirely without jurisdiction, a writ challenge under Article 226 is not maintainable. The appellant was ordered to utilize the alternative statutory remedy under Section 107.

Key Takeaways

DRC-01 as Valid Notice: A notice issued electronically via Form GST DRC-01 under Rule 142(1)(a) satisfies the prima facie structural requirements of a show-cause notice under the GST regime. A taxpayer cannot label it a “mere summary” to bypass regular appellate channels after having already replied to it.

Writ Jurisdiction Limits: Article 226 is an extraordinary remedy. High Courts will strictly relegate taxpayers to the statutory appellate route under Section 107 unless the impugned order suffers from a total lack of jurisdiction, severe violation of natural justice, or patent unconstitutionality.

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Abdul Rahiman Kunju
v.
Deputy Commissioner*
Devan Ramachandran and M.B. SNEHALATHA, JJ.
WA NO. 554 OF 2026
MARCH  2, 2026
Bobby John, Adv. for the Appellant. Smt. Thushara James, Adv. (SR.GP) for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.- The appellant challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C)No.39831 of 2025, asserting that the findings of facts therein are incorrect; and hence the conclusions untenable.
2. Sri. Bobby John – learned counsel for the appellant, printed that the learned Single Judge has held Ext.P2 to be a notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act 2017 (‘Act’ for short); and thus proceeded to dismiss the writ petition, however, reserving liberty to his client to invoke alternative statutory remedies against Ext.P9 order. He argued that, even ex facie, Ext.P2 is not a notice under Section 74 of the Act; and further that the argument of the respondents, that there were intimations prior to it, would not suffice within the statutory scheme. He contented that, therefore, Ext.P9 is a void order; and hence, amenable to challenge before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. In response to the above, Smt.Thusara James -learned Senior Government Pleader, conceded that Ext.P2 is not a notice under Section 74 of the Act, but only an intimation; which was followed by Ext.P3 notice, as evident from its title itself. She argued that the appellant never had a case that Ext.P3 was not a proper notice, as luculent from their reply – namely Ext.P5, where they unequivocally say that it is their response to the statutory show cause notice. She contended that, this is fortified by the factum of the Office of the Deputy Commissioner having issued to the appellant Ext.P4 reminder to Ext.P3 notice, consequent to which alone, they filed Ext.P5 reply. She predicated that, therefore, the present attempt is only one in experimentation, since, as the learned Single Judge has rightly found, the appellant is obligated to challenge Ext.P9 only under the statutory mechanism.
4. There is force in the afore submissions of Smt.Thushara James, though we are not in approval of the finding of the learned Single Judge that Ext.P2 is a notice under Section 74 of the ‘Act’. Ex facie, Ext.P2 is, at the best, is an intimation or communication to the appellant; and it refers to certain other intimations in the past, including a notice dated 28.09.2020, asking them to produce their books of accounts. However, Ext.P3 certainly is a notice under Section 74 of the Act, and it clearly mentions therein, to have been issued in form “GST DRC – O1”, invoking Rule 142(1)(a) of the GST Rules (‘Rules’ for short).
5. The contra argument of Sri. Bobby John is that Ext.P3 cannot be construed to be a notice, but is, at the best, a summary of a show cause notice; and hence, that his client filed their “argument notes” before the Officer, contending so.
6. Even when we hear Sri.Bobby John as afore, the fact remains that Ext.P3 was succeeded by Ext.P4 reminder issued by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner; consequent to which, the appellants filed Ext.P5 objections. They clearly state therein that they are making a reply to the show cause notice, referring specifically to Exts.P3 and P4; but they appear to have had an afterthought, which is evident from the subsequent “argument notes” they filed before the Authority, contending to the contrary.
7. We do not propose to speak any further because, it is well settled that, only if the impugned orders are pleaded and established to be void or issued without competence, can, normally, a challenge against it be mounted before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. The learned Single Judge, though have found -in our view incorrectly – that Ext.P2 is the notice under Section 74 of the Act, he was fully justified in directing the appellant to invoke their alternative remedies, for the reasons already noticed.
9. We say as afore because, prima facie, we find Ext.P3 to satisfy the requirements under Section 74 of the ‘Act’, though it will always be open to the appellant to raise a contention to the contrary before the Appellate Authority, which will then consider such in terms of law. We are further persuaded to this opinion, not merely because we notice Ext.P5 reply issued by the appellant; but since, they have raised their contention that Ext.P3 is not a notice, but only a summary of such for the first time only through their “Notes of Argument” – namely Ext.P8. This can surely be open to scrutiny and evaluation by the statutory Appellate Authority, if so raised as a ground.
10. In such circumstances, we dismiss this Writ Appeal; however, clarifying that the findings of the learned Single Judge, to the effect that Ext.P2 is a notice under Section 74 of the Act, does not find our approval; but, with all other observations and directions being confirmed.
11. The appellant will, consequently, be at liberty to move the statutory appellate Authority against Ext.P9 with all contentions, including on the merits of Exts.P3 and P4; and all such will be considered by the said Authority as per law.
Category: GST

About CA Satbir Singh

Chartered Accountant having 12+ years of Experience in Taxation , Finance and GST related matters and can be reached at Email : Taxheal@gmail.com