Availability of Efficacious Alternate Appellate Remedy Precludes

Availability of Efficacious Alternate Appellate Remedy Precludes Writ Relief Against GST Orders Passed Without Personal Hearing

Issue

Whether a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original and a subsequent rectification rejection order can be entertained when the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act is available to the taxpayer.

Facts

The department audited the petitioner’s records for FY 2021-22, issuing Form GST ADT-02 followed by a Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 proposing tax demand.
The Adjudicating Authority passed an Order-in-Original on December 3, 2025, confirming tax, interest, and penalty, and uploaded it on the GST portal.
The petitioner claimed lack of knowledge of the order due to a change in their registered accountant and the absence of manual service.
On March 3, 2026, the petitioner filed a rectification application seeking a personal hearing. During its pendency, the Electronic Credit Ledger was debited/blocked, and garnishee notices in Form GST DRC-13 were issued to bankers.
The rectification application was rejected on April 24, 2026, without granting a personal hearing, prompting the petitioner to file a writ petition seeking to set aside the orders and unblock their accounts.

Decision

The High Court held that a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 was available against both the Order-in-Original and the rectification rejection order.
Given the existence of an efficacious alternate statutory remedy, the court declined to entertain the writ petition.
The writ petition was dismissed, granting the petitioner liberty to file an appeal within 30 days.
The court directed that if the appeal is filed within 30 days, it shall be entertained without raising objections on limitation and decided strictly on merits. All legal contentions were left open.

Key Takeaways

Alternate Remedy Bar: High Courts will generally refrain from exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 when a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act is available.
Limitation Relief on Dismissal: When relegating a petitioner to an appellate authority, courts often extend time-bound protection against limitation objections to ensure the case is heard on merits.
Service via Portal: Orders uploaded on the GST portal are legally valid communications, and claims of non-receipt due to internal administrative changes (e.g., change of accountant) may not bypass statutory appeal routes.

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN

Innotex (India) (P.) Ltd.

State of Rajasthan

Arun Monga and Ashutosh Kumar, JJ.

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15049 OF 2026

AUGUST 10, 2026

Ravi Gupta, Adv. for the Petitioner. Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG and Ms. Chelsi Agarwal, Adv. for the Respondent.

ORDER

Arun Monga, J. – The petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks quashing of the order dated 03.12.2025 passed under Section 73 of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017, whereby demand of GST amounting to Rs.2,58,55,445/-, interest amounting to Rs.1,69,26,223/- and penalty of Rs.26,31,862/- has been raised against the petitioner, along with the consequential order dated 24.04.2026, rejecting the petitioner’s application for rectification.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner’s books of accounts, records and returns for the Financial Year 2021-22 were audited by the respondent-department, pursuant to which Form GST ADT-02 dated 01.09.2025 was issued. Thereafter, Form GST DRC-01 dated 18.09.2025 was issued proposing a tax demand of Rs. 2,58,55,445/-, along with applicable interest and penalty. Pursuant thereto, an order under Section 73 of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017 was passed on 03.12.2025, confirming a tax demand of Rs. 2,58,55,445/-, interest of Rs. 1,69,26,223/- and penalty of Rs. 26,31,852/-. The said order was uploaded on the GST portal under the head “Additional Notices and Orders”. The petitioner contends that the order was neither served manually nor supplied in hard copy and that it came to know of the order only when an officer of the respondent-department subsequently informed the petitioner telephonically about the outstanding demand. It is stated that the petitioner’s GST-related affairs were being handled by its accountant, whose email ID and mobile number were registered on the GST portal, but who had left the petitioner’s service by the time the relevant notices and order were issued. Consequently, the petitioner claims to have remained unaware of the proceedings. Upon engaging a new counsel and having the GST portal examined, the petitioner came to know of the order and the demand raised thereunder.

2.1 Thereafter, on 03.03.2026, the petitioner submitted an application under Section 161 of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017 seeking rectification of the order dated 03.12.2025 and specifically sought an opportunity of personal hearing to place on record the relevant reconciliation and supporting material. While the said application was pending consideration, the respondent-department, on 07.04.2026, debited the balance available in the petitioner’s Electronic Credit Ledger and blocked the ledger to the extent of approximately Rs. 4.52 crores. The rectification application was thereafter rejected vide order dated 24.04.2026 on the ground that no error apparent on the face of the record was found, without granting the petitioner the requested opportunity of personal hearing. The petitioner has consequently approached this Court challenging the order dated 03.12.2025 as well as the rectification rejection order dated 24.04.2026. The petitioner states that the statutory appeal against the order dated 03.12.2025 could not be instituted within the prescribed period as the petitioner claims to have acquired knowledge of the order only subsequently, and therefore seeks condonation of the delay in filing the appeal on the aforesaid ground.

2.2 . Respondent No.3 issued Form GST DRC-13 dated 12.05.2026 under Section 79(1)(c) of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017 to the Managers of Punjab National Bank, Delhi and Bank of Baroda, in respect of the petitioner’s bank accounts, directing them to place a hold on Rs.4,54,13,530/- and remit the same towards the demand. It is, therefore, prayed that the order dated 03.12.2025 and the rectification rejection order dated 24.04.2026 be set aside and, in the alternative, the matter be remitted to respondent No.3 for fresh consideration on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, with consequential directions for removal of the hold/attachment over the petitioner’s bank accounts and unblocking of the Electronic Credit Ledger after re-crediting the amount debited therefrom.

3. In the aforesaid backdrop, we have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

4. At the outset, learned counsels for the respondents object to the maintainability of the writ petition herein stating that the alternative remedy as provided under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, has not been availed.

5. Statutory remedy by way of an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 before the Appellate Authority is provided against the impugned order dated 18.02.2026. Section 107 reads as under:-

“Section 107. Appeals to Appellate Authority.-

(1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act or the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act by an adjudicating authority may appeal to such Appellate Authority as may be prescribed within three months from the date on which the said decision or order is communicated to such person.

x-x-x-x-x”

6. In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to directly entertain the writ petition without the petitioner exhausting its alternate statutory remedy.

7. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed with liberty to seek appropriate statutory remedy of an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017. In case the appeal is filed within 30 days, the same shall be entertained without raising any objection as to limitations and shall be disposed of on merits with respect to the impugned rectification order dated 24.04.2026 read with Order-in-Original dated 03.12.2025.

8. It is made clear that all issues and contentions raised in the present writ petition are left open to be urged before and adjudicated upon by the appellate authority in accordance with law.

9. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

10. All pending application(s) also stand disposed of.