Writ petitions against GST show cause notices or final orders are not maintainable when statutory appeal remedies exist.

By | August 5, 2026

Writ petitions against GST show cause notices or final orders are not maintainable when statutory appeal remedies exist.

Writ petitions against GST show cause notices or final orders are not maintainable when statutory appeal remedies exist.

Issue

Whether a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging a show cause notice or a final assessment order is maintainable when alternative statutory remedies of appeal are available under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Facts

  • First Writ Petition:

    • The assessee invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 seeking the quashing of a show cause notice dated September 30, 2025, along with a stay on adjudication proceedings.

  • Second Writ Petition:

    • The assessee filed a writ petition under Article 32 challenging a show cause notice dated July 31, 2024, as well as the validity of Rule 31A(3) and related notifications.

    • During the pendency of the writ petition, despite an interim order restraining coercive steps, the Assessing Officer proceeded with the adjudication and passed a final assessment order determining a tax liability of Rs. 6.3 crore.

Decision

  • First Issue (Show Cause Notice):

    • In view of the Supreme Court decision in DGGSIT (HQS) v. Gameskraft Technologies (P.) Ltd. , the petition did not require adjudication on merits.

    • The assessee was directed to appear before the Assessing Officer and, if aggrieved by the final assessment order, avail the statutory remedy of appeal under the Act. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

  • Second Issue (Final Assessment Order):

    • Since the final assessment order had already been passed during the pendency of the proceedings, the assessee was required to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under the Act.

    • The assessee was granted liberty to raise all legal contentions before the appellate authority, including issues concerning revaluation and pre-deposit, and was given four weeks to file the statutory appeal.

Key Takeaways

  • Exhaustion of Statutory Remedies: Courts will generally not entertain extraordinary writ petitions under Article 32 against show cause notices or final assessment orders when an effective statutory appellate mechanism is available under the GST law.

  • Liberty to Raise All Contentions: Dismissal or disposal of a writ petition on grounds of alternative remedy does not foreclose the assessee’s right to raise all statutory, legal, and procedural challenges before the designated Appellate Authority.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Fanmade11 Fantasy Sports (P.) Ltd.
v.
Union of India
J.B. PARDIWALA and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.
Writ Petition(Civil) No. 153 of 2026
W.P.(C) No. 174 of 2026
JULY  13, 2026
S. Muralidhar, Sr. Adv., Kumar VisalakshUdit JainJay SaytaPranav BansalVibhor SharmaMs. Ninni Susan ThomasLalitendra GulaniMohit PugaliaMs. Sneha GhoshMs. Niti KhanaTanuj KumarMs. Gayatri ShrivastavMs. M. Sarada, Advs., Vishnu Kant and Rajeev Gulani, AORs for the Petitioner.
ORDER
Writ Petition(Civil) No.153/2026:-
1. The petitioner before us has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution and has prayed for the following reliefs:-
“(a) Issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash the Show Cause Notice No. 1204/2025-26 dated September 30, 2025 issued by Respondent No. 2 to the Petitioner.
(b) Pass an order of ad-interim stay, staying the proceedings initiated through Impugned SCN, viz. No. 1204/2025-26 dated September 30, 2025, issued by the Respondent No. 2 and direct Respondent No. 3 to not pass an order before the issues referred in instant petition are decided and refrain from adjudicating the Impugned SCN pending disposal of this writ petition, and thereby render justice.
(c) Pass any such other order granting relief in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. In view of the recent pronouncement of this Court in “DGGSIT (HQS) v. Gameskraft Technologies (P.) Ltd. [2026]  116 GST 164/110 GSTL 97 (SC)” etc./(Civil Appeal Nos.8241-8244 of 2026 etc.) dated 27-5-2026, we need not now adjudicate this petition on merits.
3. The petitioner will have to appear before the Assessing Officer and ultimately if any final order of assessment is passed and the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, they may avail the remedy of Statutory Appeal provided under the Act.
4. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.
5. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
W.P.(C) No. 174/2026:-
1a. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution and has prayed for the following reliefs:-
“(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the Impugned SCN dated 31.07.2024 issued by Respondent No. 3;
(b) Declare the entire proceedings initiated by Respondent No.3 against the Petitioner culminating in the Impugned SCN dated 31.07.2024, as contrary to law and quash and set aside the same;
(c) Alternatively, issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus prohibiting Respondents, their agents and servants from initiating any recovery proceedings with respect to the Impugned SCN;
(d) Hold that Rule 31A(3) of the GST Rules is ultra vires Article 246 and Article 366(12A) as well as section 9 read with Section 15 and Section 7 of GST Act;
(e) Hold Notification No. 3/2018 – Central Tax dated 23.01.2018 and Notification No. 30/ST-2 dated 25.01.2018 is ultra vires Section 15 and Section 164 of the GST Act
(f) Issue such other appropriate writ, order or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper to issue in the circumstances of the case.
2a. Dr. S. Muralidhar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that despite there being an interim order passed by this Court that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner, the Assessing Officer proceeded with the hearing of the impugned show cause notice and passed the final order of assessment determining the tax liability of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.6.3 Crore.
3a. We are of the view that since final order of assessment has already been passed, the petitioner may now prefer an appeal as provided under the Act.
4a. It shall also be open for the petitioner to raise all contentions available to them in law before the appellate authority including the issue of revaluation and pre-deposit.
5a. We grant four weeks time to the petitioner to prefer an appropriate Statutory Appeal against the final order of assessment.
6a. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.
7a. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.