Writ petition dismissed as alternate statutory appellate remedy

Writ petition dismissed as alternate statutory appellate remedy must be availed against reasoned adjudication orders.

Issue

Whether a writ petition can be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution against a Show Cause Notice (SCN) and a consequential Order-in-Original (OIO) issued under Section 74, when the petitioner participated in the adjudication proceedings and has an efficacious alternate statutory remedy available under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act.

Facts

The petitioner approached the High Court via writ jurisdiction to challenge a Show Cause Notice (SCN) and the consequential Order-in-Original (OIO) passed under Section 74 of the CGST/RGST Act covering multiple financial years.
The core challenge raised by the petitioner was that the adjudicating authority lacked the jurisdiction to issue a single, consolidated notice for multiple assessment periods.
The facts show that the SCN was duly served on the petitioner, who did not challenge the notice at the initial stage but instead actively participated in the adjudication proceedings.
The adjudicating authority granted a proper hearing to the petitioner, considered the objections, and subsequently passed a detailed, speaking, and reasoned OIO.
Following the passing of the OIO, the petitioner chose to file a writ petition instead of filing a regular statutory appeal before the appellate authority.

Decision

The High Court refused to entertain the writ petition and dismissed it, ruling that the statute explicitly provides an efficacious alternative appellate remedy under Section 107 against the orders of an adjudicating authority.
It was held that while an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, the court will exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction only under exceptional circumstances.
The court observed that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any breach of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice, absolute lack or excess of jurisdiction, or a challenge to the constitutional validity (vires) of the statutory provisions.
Since the petitioner actively participated in the adjudication and the final OIO was fully reasoned after a proper hearing, no exceptional grounds existed to bypass the statutory route.
The court reiterated that a writ petition does not normally lie against a mere SCN, and the petitioner was directed to avail themselves of the statutory appeal process under Section 107 to challenge the OIO.
The case was decided entirely in favor of the Revenue.

Key Takeaways

Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies: Writ courts will generally not bypass the statutory appellate framework established by tax legislations like the GST Act unless the case fits into strict, narrow exceptions.
Exceptions to the Writ Bar: A petitioner can leapfrog a statutory appeal to file a writ petition under Article 226 only by proving a clear violation of natural justice, a direct infringement of fundamental rights, a total lack of jurisdictional authority, or an invalidation of the law itself.
Participation Waives Initial Objections: Actively participating in a tax adjudication process without challenging the underlying notice makes it significantly harder to later claim that the final, reasoned order should be thrown out in a writ court without going through the regular appellate channels.

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN

Punj Lloyd Ltd.-Varaha Infra Ltd. (JV)

Union of India^*

Inderjeet Singh and Sandeep Taneja, JJ.

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10695 of 2026

MAY 25, 2026

Sharad Kothari and Chirag Soni for the Petitioner. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG, Rishabh Dadhich, HVS Chandrawat, Associates and Rajvendra Saraswat for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:

“It is therefore humbly prayed that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate order or direction:-

(a) The Show Cause Notice dated 12.03.2025 (Annexure-2) and any other consequential proceedings may be quashed.

(b) The Order-In-Original dated 27.03.2026 (Annexure-3) may be declared illegal and set-aside.

(c) Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the humble petitioner.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner herein is aggrieved by the issuance of show cause notice dated 12.03.2025 (Annexure-2) as well as the Order-in-Original dated 27.03.2026 (Annexure-3) passed by the respondents. Learned counsel has further submitted that the authority who issued the show cause notice had no jurisdiction to issue a consolidated single show cause notice for multiple years. Learned counsel has also submitted that as per the scheme of Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 2017’), such notice cannot be issued and therefore, has prayed to quash and set aside the same in exercise of power of judicial review.

2.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court:-

Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority [Civil Appeal No. 5393 of 2010, dated 1-2-2023].

ii.

J. Sri Nisha v. Special Director, Adjudicating Authority, Directorate of Enforcement [SLP (Civil) No(s). 23415 of 2025, dated 17-2-2026].

2.2 Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the following orders/judgments passed by this Court as well as other High Courts:

DBCWP No. 7290/2025 : Uno Minda Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner, Anti EvasionOrder dated 25.07.2025

ii.

DBCWP No. 14105/2025 : Ashok Jain & Co. v. Union of Indiaorder dated 18.09.2025

iii.

DBCWP No. 15990/2025 : Meridean Overseas Education Consultants (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India, order dated 06.11.2025

iv.

DBCWP No. 19707/2025 : Kota Metals v. Additional Commissioner (Adjudication)order dated 16.12.2025

DBCWP No. 19706/2025 : Hamid Traders v. Additional Commissioner (Adjudication)order dated 16.12.2025

vi.

DBCWP No. 7378/2025 : Rathi Bars v. Additional Commissioner CGST and Central Excise CommissionerOrder dated 07.10.2025

vii.

DBCWP No. 19711/2025 SK Metals v. Additional Commissioner (Adjudication)Order dated 16.12.2025

viii.

State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Caltex (India) Ltd. 1965 SCC Online SC 168

ix.

Titan Company Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise [2024] (Madras)/2024 (1) TMI 619- Madras High Court

Milroc Good Earth Developers v. Union of India 112 GST 596/[2026] 104 GSTL 45 (Bombay)/2025 (10) TMI 867- Bombay High Court

xi.

S J Constructions v. Asstt. Commissioner 102 GSTL 348 (Andhra Pradesh)/2025 (9) TMI-Andhra Pradesh High Court

xii.

Gyankeer Tobacco Products (P.) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner, Central Excise and Central GST Commissionerate (Rajasthan)/D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18915/2024, decided on 16.04.2026.

3. Per contra, learned AAG and learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the writ petition and have submitted that the show cause notice has been issued within limitation as prescribed under the Act of 2017. Learned counsel have further submitted that the petitioner is estopped to raise the issue of jurisdiction of the authority concerned before this Court as the petitioner has already participated in the adjudication proceedings. It is submitted that once the petitioner has participated in the adjudication process and the Order-in-Original has been passed, the writ petition cannot be maintained as the petitioner is having alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act of 2017.

3.1 Learned counsel have also submitted that the authority concerned has not committed any error in issuing the show cause notice as the expression used in Section 74 of the Act of 2017 is ‘period’ and not the ‘Financial Year’, and therefore, it is permissible to issue show cause notice for any period and not required to be issued in respect of any specific Financial Year. It is further submitted that the objection raised by the petitioner has been dealt with by the adjudicating authority in Order-in-Original which can be assailed in appeal.

3.2 Learned AAG as well as learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon the following judgments:

Trillion Lead Factory (P.) Ltd. v. Superintendent of Central Tax 108 GSTL 4/115 GST 133 (SC)/Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 7101/2026, decided on 27.02.2026. (Hon’ble Supreme Court of India)

ii.

Tanushree Logistics (P.) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan 97 GST 500 (Rajasthan)/D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17550/2022, decided on 07.12.2022. (Rajasthan High Court)

iii.

Mathur Polymers v. Union of India 103 GSTL 72 (Delhi)/W.P. (C) 2394/2025 and CM Appl.11289/2025, decided on 26.08.2025. (Delhi High Court)

4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Section 107 of the Act of 2017 deals with the statutory remedy of appeal and provides that any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act by an adjudicating Authority may prefer an appeal to Appellate Authority. The issue of maintainability of a writ petition in view of the availability of above alternative remedy came up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Asstt. Commissioner of State Tax v. Commercial Steel Ltd. 88 GST 799/52 GSTL 385 (SC)/(2022) 16 SCC 447 and the Apex Court has observed as under:-

“11. The Respondent had a statutory remedy Under Section 107. Instead of availing of the remedy, the Respondent instituted a petition Under Article 226. The existence of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution. But a writ petition can be entertained in exceptional circumstances where there is:

(i)

a breach of fundamental rights;

(ii)

a violation of the principles of natural justice;

(iii)

an excess of jurisdiction; or

(iv)

a challenge to the vires of the statute or delegated legislation.

12. In the present case, none of the above exceptions was established. There was, in fact, no violation of the principles of natural justice since a notice was served on the person in charge of the conveyance. In this backdrop, it was not appropriate for the High Court to entertain a writ petition. The assessment of facts would have to be carried out by the appellate authority. As a matter of fact, the High Court has while doing this exercise proceeded on the basis of surmises. However, since we are inclined to relegate the Respondent to the pursuit of the alternate statutory remedy Under Section 107, this Court makes no observation on the merits of the case of the Respondent.”

6. A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Super Service Point v. Union of India [2025] (Gujarat)/R/Special Civil Application No. 9382/2025 decided on 04.09.2025, relied upon the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and dismissed the writ petition relegating the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 107 of the Act of 2017.

6.1 In that matter, the case of the petitioner was that the adjudicating authority ought to have passed separate orders against the consolidated show cause notice.

6.2 It is pertinent to mention here that the Super Service Point v. Union of India [2026] 114 GST 132 (SC)/Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.38643/2025 decided on 07.01.2026, filed against the dismissal of the writ petition by the Gujarat High Court, was also dismissed as withdrawn, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 107 of the Act of 2017.

7. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Trillion Lead Factory (P.) Ltd. (supra) has also observed that a writ petition shall not lie against issuance of show cause notice. The relevant paragraphs are quoted hereunder:-

“It is trite law that no writ lies against an issuance of show cause notice and such writ petition would not be maintainable. This position has been explained to by this Court in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Ors. v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, (2012) 11 SCC 565 and in the judgment of Commr. of Central Excise Commissionerate v. M/s Krishna Was (P) Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.8609/2019 disposed of on 14.11.2019 vide Paragraph-2.”

8. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court also in the case of Tanushree Logistics (P.) Ltd. (supra) has observed as under:-

“The law declared in the aforesaid decisions, particularly in cases where challenge arises out of an order of assessment in the matter of imposition of tax, leaves no manner of doubt that except in limited circumstances as dealt with hereinabove, the writ petitions would not be maintainable.

In view of above, we are not inclined to entertain these writ petitions and to go into correctness of the order of assessment and leave this to be dealt with by the appellate authority in the event the writ petitioner choses to avail his right of appeal as provided under Section 107 of the Act.

In the result, the objection of maintainability of the writ petitions is sustained and the writ petitions are held to be not maintainable, as the petitioner has an efficacious alternative statutory remedy of filing of an appeal.

All these writ petitions are accordingly dismissed, leaving it open for the petitioner to avail alternative remedy of appeal. We further direct that the period during which these petitions remained pending before this court shall not be counted for the purposes of counting the period of limitation in filing appeal.”

9. In the instant case, the show cause notice dated 12.03.2025 was duly served upon the petitioner. Undisputedly, the petitioner did not lay any challenge to the show cause notice at the initial stage and rather chose to participate in the adjudication process and raised all the objections therein. The adjudicating authority, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed a speaking and reasoned Order-in-Original dated 27.03.2026, therefore, in our opinion, there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, in view of the above and as also in light of the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments of Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (supra), Super Service Point (supra) and Trillion Lead Factory (P.) Ltd. (supra), as well as the observation made by this Court in the case of Tanushree Logistics (P.) Ltd. (supra), since the petitioner is now having efficacious alternative remedy of statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Act of 2017, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. The petitioner may avail the remedy of appeal, if so advised, to challenge the Order-in-Original dated 27.03.2026.

10. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed.

11. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.