Writ remedy is barred when an efficacious statutory appeal is available under GST laws.

By | June 5, 2026
0 Comment

Writ remedy is barred when an efficacious statutory appeal is available under GST laws.

Issue

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging a Show Cause Notice (SCN) and an Order-in-Original is maintainable when the petitioner has a statutory, efficacious alternative remedy of appeal available under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act / Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax (RGST) Act, 2017.

Facts

  • Issuance of Notice and Order: The tax department issued a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner, which subsequently culminated in an adverse Order-in-Original passed by the Adjudicating Authority under the CGST/RGST Acts.

  • Writ Petition Filed: Instead of filing a regular statutory appeal, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court, seeking to quash the SCN and the Order-in-Original.

  • Grounds of Challenge: The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of certain input tax credit conditions, sought the quashing of a departmental circular, and pleaded that the principles of natural justice were violated because they were denied the opportunity for cross-examination during adjudication.

  • Revenue’s Objection: The respondent department strongly opposed the writ petition, contending that it was not maintainable because the petitioner had skipped an alternative, highly efficacious appellate framework explicitly provided by the law.

Decision

  • Writ Remedy Barred: The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that since a clear statutory mechanism for appeal exists before the competent appellate authority, direct interference via a writ petition is not warranted.

  • Liberty to Appeal Granted: The court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the designated statutory appellate authority to raise all relevant legal and factual grievances, including the arguments concerning the denial of cross-examination and the validity of conditions.

Key Takeaways

  • Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies: High Courts will generally refuse to entertain writ petitions under Article 226 against GST assessment orders or Show Cause Notices if the taxpayer bypasses the mandatory statutory appeal route provided under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act.

  • Natural Justice Claims in Appeal: Allegations regarding procedural lapses, such as the denial of an opportunity for cross-examination, are factual and legal disputes that can be effectively argued and remedied before the departmental appellate authority rather than bypassing it via extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Prime Metals
v.
Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs*
Inderjeet Singh and Ashok Kumar Jain, JJ.
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3729 of 2026
APRIL  29, 2026
Palash Gupta and Jatin Harjai for the Petitioner. Nitin Jain and Ms. Kriti Kalawatia for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with following prayers:
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayer that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue an writ of Certiorari or prohibition or any other appropriate writ/order/direction;
a. To quash the Circular no. 3/3/2017 (Annexure-7) issued by Respondent No. 1 being without authority from law.
b. To declare Sections 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/ Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 as ultra vires the Constitution of India;
c. To quash and set aside OIO dated 17.12.2025 (Annexure P/6);
d. To quash SCN dated 25.06.2025 (Annexure P/4);
e. Any other relief as this Hon’ble Court may deem fir and proper in the fact, circumstance and legal position of the case and in law to the petitioner.”
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the show cause notice as well as original order passed by the adjudicating authority.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that no opportunity of cross-examination was given to the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for respondent(s) opposed the submissions and submitted that the petitioner is having an alternative remedy of appeal against the order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the adjudicating authority.
5. Learned counsel for respondent(s) has relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Trillion Lead Factory (P.) Ltd. v. Superintendent of Central Tax 115 GST 133/108 GSTL 4 (SC)/Special Leave to appeal (C) No. 7101/2026 decided on 27.02.2026 wherein it has been held as under:
“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.”
6. Learned counsel for respondent(s) further placed reliance upon judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Tanushree Logistics (P.) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan [2023] 97 GST 500 (Raj)/D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17550/2022 decided on 07.12.2022 wherein the Division Bench has already considered the provision of appeal under Section 107 of CGST Act and observed that alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner before the appellate authority.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
8. Considering the fact that the petitioner is having statutory alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act before the appellate authority, we are not inclined to interfere in this matter.
9. Hence, the instant writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to raise all his grounds, legal and factual before the appellate authority.
Category: GST