Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Bombay, in its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, considered a writ petition filed by Mahapuja Ltd. challenging an Order-In-Original dated 17 March 2026 passed by the Additional Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai. The petition primarily sought to quash the adjudication order on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, alleging that the revenue authorities had not supplied copies of documents seized during a search conducted on 10 February 2021 under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that without these documents, it could not effectively respond to the show cause notice dated 26 June 2025, which proposed disallowance of input tax credit and demanded tax and penalty of Rs. 6.50 crores. The petitioner argued that the non-supply rendered the adjudication order null and void. The respondent, however, raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability, pointing out that the impugned order was appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The respondent submitted that the writ petition should be dismissed for not exhausting the alternative statutory remedy. On merits, the respondent stated that the show cause notice and relied upon documents had been sent to the petitioner’s registered email addresses on 28 June 2025 and again on 4 February 2026, and that the petitioner’s grievance was addressed in the adjudication order itself. The court, after hearing both sides, framed the core issue as whether the writ petition was maintainable in light of the available appeal remedy. Relying on recent Supreme Court decisions in Rikhab Chand Jain v. Union of India, Nikhil Garg v. Union of India, and Shaik Arif v. Commissioner of Customs, the court reiterated the settled principle that High Courts should not entertain writ petitions under Article 226 when an effective alternative remedy exists, unless the petitioner makes out an exceptional case with proper pleadings. The court found that the petitioner had merely made bald assertions about non-supply of documents without specifying which documents were missing or how prejudice was caused. The adjudication order recorded that the documents were sent to the petitioner’s email addresses, and the petitioner had not contradicted this with any evidence. The court observed a growing tendency to bypass the appellate remedy to avoid the mandatory pre-deposit requirement. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable, holding that no exceptional case was made out. However, in the interest of justice, it granted the petitioner liberty to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 107 within four weeks, subject to complying with all statutory requirements including pre-deposit. The court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Remedies - Alternative Statutory Remedy - Constitution of India, Article 226 - A writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable when an efficacious statutory appeal is available under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, unless the petitioner demonstrates exceptional circumstances with specific pleadings. Held that the High Court should not entertain such petitions to circumvent the mandatory pre-deposit requirement, and the petitioner failed to establish an exceptional case (Paras 14, 18, 19). B) Tax Law - Natural Justice in GST Proceedings - Scope of Principle - Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, Section 67 - A mere allegation that documents seized were not supplied, without specifying which documents and how prejudice was caused, does not constitute a violation of natural justice warranting bypassing the appellate remedy. The adjudicating order recorded that the show cause notice and relied-upon documents were sent to the petitioner's email. Held that bald assertions unsupported by material cannot justify invocation of writ jurisdiction (Paras 11, 12, 15). C) Tax Procedure - Appellate Remedy under CGST Act - Section 107, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - An order-in-original under the CGST Act is appealable to the Commissioner (Appeals) within prescribed time and subject to pre-deposit. The writ court granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal within four weeks, clarifying that the appellate authority shall decide on merits if all statutory requirements are met (Paras 10, 20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was maintainable in view of the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and whether the petitioner had made out an exceptional case of violation of natural justice to bypass the statutory appeal.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 107 of the CGST Act within four weeks, subject to compliance with statutory requirements including pre-deposit. The court held that no exceptional case was made out to invoke Article 226 jurisdiction.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be exercised when alternative statutory remedy is available
- Petitioner must make out an exceptional case supported by pleadings
- Bald allegations of violation of natural justice without particulars do not justify bypassing appeal remedy
- Appellate remedy under Section 107 of CGST Act is an efficacious alternative
- Pre-deposit requirement under statute not to be circumvented by filing writ petition
