Writ petition against GST assessment and rectification orders

Writ petition against GST assessment and rectification orders dismissed due to availability of efficacious alternative appellate remedy

Issue

Whether a writ petition challenging an assessment order and a rectification order on grounds of notice defects and limitation should be entertained when an efficacious alternative statutory appellate remedy is available.

Facts

For FY 2021-22, the Assistant Commissioner issued Form GST DRC-01 along with an annexure detailing a turnover variance.
The discrepancy arose from undisclosed turnover that appeared in the Works and Accounts Management Information System.
An Order-in-Original was passed raising a tax demand, which was subsequently followed by a Rectification Order.
The petitioner, a registered GST taxpayer, filed a writ petition challenging both the Order-in-Original and the Rectification Order.
The petitioner contended that no proper show cause notice was served beyond the summary in Form GST DRC-01 and that the rectification order was time-barred.
The Revenue submitted that the annexure to DRC-01 fully apprised the petitioner of the allegations and that efficacious statutory remedies were available under the Act.

Decision

Notice Defect Not Jurisdictional: A mere defect in a notice does not vitiate jurisdiction unless it goes to the root of the matter or causes a fundamental breach of principles of natural justice.
Adequate Notice Served: The annexure attached to Form GST DRC-01 sufficiently made the discrepancy known to the petitioner.
Alternative Statutory Remedy Must Be Exhausted: Disputes regarding factual discrepancies in turnover figures, procedural objections, and limitation are properly examinable by the Appellate Authority or the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT).
Outcome: The High Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and dismissed the petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue statutory appellate remedies (decided in favor of the Revenue).

Key Takeaways

Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies: High Courts will not entertain writ petitions under Article 226 when efficacious statutory appellate remedies under Section 107 or Section 112 are available to resolve disputes of fact and law.
Sufficiency of DRC-01 Annexures: Service of a summary in Form GST DRC-01 along with detailed annexures satisfies the requirement of informing the taxpayer of allegations, preventing claims of complete lack of notice.
Forum for Fact-Finding: Technical objections regarding return-figure discrepancies and procedural limitation periods must be raised before statutory appellate authorities rather than through extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

HIGH COURT OF ORISSA

Ritesh Mitra

Assistant Commissioner of State Tax

Harish Tandon, CJ.
and MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.

WP(C) No. 12141 of 2026

MAY 18, 2026

Jaish Joshi, Adv. for the Petitioner. Sunil Mishra, Standing Counsel for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. Assailed in the writ petition are the Order dated 5^th August, 2024 passed under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Collectively, “GST Act”) pertaining to tax periods from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022 (Annexure-2) read with Rectification Order dated 7^th March, 2026 by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bargarh Circle, Sambalpur, on the grounds inter alia that without issuing Show Cause Notice for initiation of proceeding under Section 74, the final order raising demand could not have been passed and the Rectification Order under Section 161 being kept passed keeping the application for more than one and half years, the order impugned is barred by limitation.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Order-in-Original dated 5^th August, 2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bargarh Circle, Sambalpur, cannot be sustained in the eye of law inasmuch as it has been passed without serving Show Cause Notice on the petitioner. Therefore, there is no initiation of proceeding under Section 74 of the GST Act in the eye of law. Arguments are expanded by submitting that mere service of Summary of Show Cause Notice dated 17^th February, 2024 would not suffice to invoke jurisdiction under Section 74 of the GST Act. Contending that the authority having not applied conscientious mind by adhering to the statutory mandate the orders impugned are liable to be quashed.

3. Vehemently opposing entertainment of writ petition against the orders impugned, challenge against which is the domain for the authorities conferred with the power under the GST Act and the Rules framed thereunder, Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the CT & GST Organization would submit that the Order-in-Original as well as the Rectification Order has been passed having due regard to the statutory provisions. Drawing attention of this Court to Annexure-1, i.e., Notice in Form GST-01 it is submitted that the Annexure appended to said notice clearly reveals the allegation/objection to be met by the petitioner. This annexure with precision made it known to the petitioner that in the returns furnished for the tax periods 2021-22 the taxable person concealed to disclose certain turnover though the amount is reflected in the Works and Accounts Management Information System.

4. Heard Mr. Jaish Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the CT & GST Organization.

5. At the outset, it may be apposite to observe that mere defect in the notice may not vitiate jurisdiction to initiate proceeding unless such notice goes to the root of the matter and the order passed thereon is passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice. Lack of jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 74 of the GST Act for finding discrepancy in the figures disclosed in the returns can be considered by the Appellate Authority or, as the case may be, the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal. This Court on a bare perusal of Annexure appended to the Notice in Form GST DRC-01 finds that discrepancy noticed by the authority concerned has been made known to the petitioner. If the petitioner is aggrieved with such allegation, and could not place before the Adjudicating Authority at the first instance, there is ample scope for him to agitate grievance before the statutory authorities empowered in this behalf for consideration of factual merit of the matter. The statutory authorities are clothed with power to adjudicate not only the facts but also the legal perspective of the subject-matter for which they are created. The nature of grounds as pressed into service by the counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition, in the considered opinion of this Court, can be appreciated by the authorities under the GST Act and the Rules framed thereunder on perusal of connected records of the Authorities below. Therefore, such disputed question of fact is to be left for the appropriate authority to consider.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh 86 GST 665/48 GSTL 113 (SC)/(2021) 3 SCR 406 , held, inter alia, that where an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person, the High Court ought to restrain itself from exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and when a right is created by statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is made clear that this rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion.

7. In view of such enunciation of principles by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, this Court desists from entertaining this writ petition questioning the legality of the orders assailed herein. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner, if so advised, to approach appropriate forum as available under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rules framed thereunder.

8. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition along with the pending Interlocutory Application (s), if any, shall stand dismissed.