Writ Challenging GST Penalty Notice Dismissed as Alternative Statutory Appeal Remedy Must Be Availed First
Issue
Whether a writ petition challenging a penalty show-cause notice and the consequential adjudication order on the grounds of officer competence can be entertained when a statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available under Section 107.
Facts
-
Original tax adjudication and penalty proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 122 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.
-
The original adjudication order was formally passed by Respondent No. 6, who held the rank of Joint Commissioner.
-
The petitioner alleged that the foundational Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued by Respondent No. 5, who was not the designated “proper officer” within the meaning of Section 2(91) of the Act at the relevant time.
-
Seeking to nullify the proceedings, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court to quash both the SCN and the consequential penalty order.
-
The Revenue Department contested the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the petitioner must utilize the statutory alternative remedy of appeal provided under the CGST Act.
Decision
-
Held, no: The High Court declined to interfere under its writ jurisdiction because a viable, effective statutory alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107(1) is available to the petitioner before the appellate authority.
-
Held, yes: The writ petition is dismissed, and the issue is decided in favor of the revenue.
-
Held, yes: The petitioner is granted explicit liberty to approach the competent appellate authority and raise all relevant legal and factual grounds—including the jurisdictional challenge regarding the “proper officer”—before them.
Key Takeaways
-
Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies: High Courts will generally not exercise their extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 if an efficient, self-contained statutory appeal mechanism exists within the tax machinery.
-
Jurisdictional Issues Can Be Raised on Appeal: A challenge to the competence or designation of a “proper officer” who issued a notice is a mixed question of law and fact that can be fully evaluated by the statutory GST Appellate Authority.
-
Dismissal Does Not Erase Rights: When a writ petition is dismissed due to maintainability and alternative remedies, the court safeguards the taxpayer’s rights by granting them the liberty to present their entire case before the appropriate appellate forum.
| (i) | Issue writ of Certiorari for quashing: Show Cause Notice No. 11/2024-25-GST dated 30.04.2024 along with Form GST DRC-01 of even date (Annexure P-2), and Subsequent and consequential Order No. 33 (GST) JP/AY/2025-26 dated 02.11.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by the respondent no. 6 i.e. Joint Commissioner, on the ground that the proceedings initiated under Section 122 Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, pursuant to the said Show Cause Notice Dated 30.04.2024 (Annexure P-2), were issued by Respondent No. 5, who, at the relevant time, was not the “proper officer” within the meaning of Section 2(91) CGST Act. The absence of lawful assignment of functions is evident from Circular No. 254/11/2025-GST dated 27.10.2025 (Annexure P-9), thereby rendering the impugned proceedings ultra vires the statute and legally unsustainable. |
| (ii) | Pass such or similar order as deem fit in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. |