Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. G. Khanna & Company, a proprietorship firm, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging a show cause notice issued under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner was represented by Mr. Mahesh Raichandani and Adv. Dhanishtha Kawale. The respondents included the Union of India, State of Maharashtra, Joint Commissioner (Appeals-III) CGST & CX, Mumbai, and Deputy Commissioner, CGST & CX, Mumbai West. The court, comprising Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna, heard the matter. The petitioner argued that the show cause notice was without jurisdiction and that the writ petition should be entertained despite the availability of an alternative remedy. However, the court, relying on the principle that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when an efficacious alternative remedy exists, dismissed the petition. The court directed the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The judgment was delivered on 25 September 2025.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - Availability of Statutory Appeal - The court declined to entertain a writ petition challenging a show cause notice under the CGST Act, 2017, holding that the petitioner must exhaust the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 before invoking writ jurisdiction. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging a show cause notice under the GST Act when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Law Points
- Alternative remedy
- Writ jurisdiction
- Show cause notice
- GST
- Section 107 CGST Act
- 2017
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (09) 139
Writ Petition No. 208 of 2025
M.S. Sonak, Advait M. Sethna
Mahesh Raichandani, Dhanishtha Kawale, J B Mishra, Ashutosh Mishra, Himanshu Takke, Sehnaz Bharucha, Saket Ketkar
Union of India, State of Maharashtra, Joint Commissioner (Appeals-III) CGST & CX, Mumbai, Deputy Commissioner, CGST & CX, Mumbai West
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging a show cause notice under the GST Act.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the show cause notice.
Filing Reason
Petitioner contended that the show cause notice was without jurisdiction.
Issues
Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging a show cause notice under the GST Act when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the show cause notice was without jurisdiction and that the writ petition should be entertained despite the availability of an alternative remedy.
Respondents argued that the petitioner should avail the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court should not entertain a writ petition challenging a show cause notice when an efficacious alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available. The petitioner must exhaust the alternative remedy before invoking writ jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
The court declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.
The petitioner is directed to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging a show cause notice under the GST Act. The court heard the matter and dismissed the petition, directing the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of appeal.
Acts & Sections
- Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017: Section 107
