M/S Rajkalpana Travels Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Cgst, Delhi North Commissionerate

$~33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 28.10.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010193812026
+ W.P.(C) 6040/2026 and CM APPL. 29750/2026
M/S RAJKALPANA TRAVELS PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Priyanka Goel, Adv.

versus

COMMISSIONER CGST, DELHI NORTH
COMMISSIONERATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Shubham Tyagi, SSC along
with Ms. Navruti Ojha, Adv.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHARAT PARASHAR
J U D G M E N T ( O R A L )
1. Through the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner assails the
1
Order-in-Original dated 16.03.2026 , passed by the Respondent under
2
Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 , whereby
a demand of Rs.4,49,93,111/- has been confirmed against the
Petitioner, along with applicable interest and an equivalent penalty. The
Petitioner seeks quashing of the Impugned Order, principally on the
ground that the same was passed ex parte , without affording an
effective opportunity of personal hearing.
2. At the outset, it deserves notice that the Impugned Order is
appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The statutory scheme
provides a mechanism for challenging an order passed by the

1
Hereinafter, the ‘Impugned Order’
2
Hereinafter, the ‘CGST Act’
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:06:39
W.P.(C) 6040/2026 Page 1 of 9

adjudicating authority, enabling the appellate authority to examine the
legality and correctness of the determination, including questions of
fact and law arising therefrom.
3. The controversy in the present Writ Petition centres around the
service of notices fixing personal hearings during the adjudication
proceedings. While the Petitioner contends that no such notices were
served at its correct and registered email address, the Respondent
maintains that the notices were duly communicated to the email address
available in their records. The Petitioner has, in support of its
contention, relied upon a screenshot of an email and asserted that the
email address to which the notices were sent was incorrect and that its
email particulars had been updated.
4. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present
Writ Petition, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
5. The Petitioner states that an audit for the financial years 2019-20
to 2023-24 was undertaken by the Department under Section 65 of the
CGST Act. In the course of the audit, an Audit Memo dated 06.09.2025
was issued raising certain discrepancies concerning, inter alia , alleged
short payment of tax, classification of services and availment of input
tax credit.
6. The Petitioner submitted its response to the Audit Memo vide
communication dated 17.09.2025, explaining its position with respect
to the observations raised by the Department. Thereafter, a Final Audit
Report in Form GST ADT-02 dated 19.09.2025 was issued. An
intimation in Form GST DRC-01A dated 23.09.2025 was subsequently
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:06:39
W.P.(C) 6040/2026 Page 2 of 9

issued, communicating the proposed tax liability arising from the audit
observations.
3
7. Thereafter, Show Cause Notice dated 29.09.2025 was issued to
the Petitioner under Section 74 of the CGST Act, proposing recovery of
tax, along with applicable interest and penalty. The proceedings
culminated in the passing of the Impugned Order dated 16.03.2026,
confirming the demand against the Petitioner.
8. The Impugned Order records that opportunities of personal
hearing were fixed for 03.02.2026, 11.02.2026 and 19.02.2026.
According to the Petitioner, however, no notice intimating the aforesaid
dates of hearing was received either through email, physical mode or on
the GST portal. The Petitioner, therefore, contends that the adjudication
proceedings were concluded ex parte without affording it a meaningful
opportunity to present its defence.
9. Aggrieved by the Impugned Order, the Petitioner has approached
this Court seeking its quashing, together with a direction to the
Respondent to afford an effective opportunity of hearing and pass a
fresh order after considering the Petitioner’s submissions.
10. Heard learned counsel representing the parties and, with their
able assistance, perused the paper book.
11. Learned counsel representing the Petitioner submits that the
Impugned Order has been passed in violation of the principles of
natural justice, without affording an effective opportunity of personal
hearing. It is contended that the demand has been confirmed without

3
Hereinafter, the ‘SCN’
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:06:39
W.P.(C) 6040/2026 Page 3 of 9

due consideration of the Petitioner’s explanations. In support, learned
counsel relies upon a screenshot of an email and the Petitioner’s GST
registration particulars, asserting that the hearing notices were sent to
an incorrect email address, namely, [email protected] , whereas
the registered email address is [email protected] . It is
further submitted that the Respondent has not established valid service
in accordance with Section 169 of the CGST Act or demonstrated that
the links and time slots for the proposed virtual hearings were duly
communicated.
12. Per contra , learned counsel representing the Respondent
opposes the Writ Petition on the ground that the Petitioner has an
efficacious alternative remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act. On
merits, it is submitted that three opportunities of personal hearing were
fixed for 03.02.2026, 11.02.2026 and 19.02.2026, and the
corresponding notices were duly sent to the email address available in
the Department’s records through emails dated 02.02.2026, 05.02.2026
and 16.02.2026, which did not bounce back. The Respondent contends
that the Petitioner failed to avail these opportunities and did not file a
reply to the SCN, and that the adjudicating authority was, therefore,
justified in proceeding on the basis of the material available on record.
13. In Rejoinder, learned counsel representing the Petitioner disputes
that the mere dispatch of emails, or their not having bounced back,
establishes valid service. It is submitted that the correctness of the email
address and the service of the hearing notices must be examined with
reference to the relevant registration particulars and contemporaneous
communications.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:06:39
W.P.(C) 6040/2026 Page 4 of 9

14. No other submissions have been advanced by learned counsel
representing the parties.
15. This Court has considered the submissions advanced on behalf of
the parties and perused the material placed on record.
16. The rule concerning the exhaustion of an alternative statutory
remedy is well settled. Ordinarily, where the legislature has provided an
efficacious appellate mechanism for redressal of grievances arising
from an adjudication order, the High Court would exercise restraint in
entertaining a challenge to such order under Article 226 of the
Constitution. Such restraint is not founded upon an absence of
constitutional jurisdiction, but upon the settled principles governing the
discretionary exercise of that jurisdiction, particularly where the statute
provides a specialised mechanism for examination of the controversy.
17. At the same time, the existence of an alternative remedy does not
constitute an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction. In
Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Others v. Commercial Steel
4
Limited , the Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court may
entertain a Writ Petition notwithstanding the availability of an
alternative remedy in recognised circumstances, including breach of
fundamental rights, violation of the principles of natural justice,
proceedings undertaken in excess of jurisdiction, or a challenge to the
vires of the legislation. The applicability of any such exception,
however, has to be examined in the context of the facts and
circumstances of the individual case.

4
(2022) 16 SCC 447
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:06:39
W.P.(C) 6040/2026 Page 5 of 9

18. The mere invocation of the principles of natural justice would
not, by itself, dispense with the requirement of ordinarily availing the
statutory remedy. The Court must consider the nature of the grievance
raised, the material relied upon in support thereof and whether the
controversy can appropriately be examined by the statutory appellate
authority.
19. In the present case, the principal grievance urged by the
Petitioner concerns the alleged non-service of notices fixing personal
hearings. The Petitioner contends that the email address to which the
notices were sent was incorrect and that the email particulars reflected
against its GST registration were different. In support of this
contention, reliance has been placed upon a screenshot of an email and
the registration particulars stated to be available on the GST portal.
20. The Respondent, on the other hand, asserts that notices of
personal hearing were issued on three separate occasions and
communicated to the email address available in their records. It relies
upon the email communications dated 02.02.2026, 05.02.2026 and
16.02.2026, and contends that the emails were not returned
undelivered. The Respondent consequently maintains that the
Petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunities to participate in the
adjudication proceedings but failed to avail the same.
21. It is, therefore, evident that the parties have taken competing
positions on a matter which has a direct bearing on the Petitioner’s
grievance of denial of an opportunity of hearing. The question is not
merely whether emails were dispatched by the Respondent, but whether
the notices were communicated in accordance with the applicable
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:06:39
W.P.(C) 6040/2026 Page 6 of 9

statutory provisions and to the relevant email address attributable to the
Petitioner at the material time. The Petitioner’s assertion that its email
particulars had been updated, and the Respondent’s reliance upon the
address available in their records, would have to be considered in the
light of the relevant registration particulars and contemporaneous
communications.
22. The screenshot relied upon by the Petitioner is required to be
considered in its proper factual context. Equally, the email
communications relied upon by the Respondent and the registration
particulars maintained by the Department would be relevant in
determining whether the notices were sent to the email address
registered against the Petitioner’s GST registration.
23. This Court is conscious that the Petitioner has sought to
characterise the aforesaid dispute as a violation of the principles of
natural justice, relying upon Section 75(4) of the CGST Act and the
judicial precedents.
24. The decisions relied upon by the Petitioner underscore the
importance of compliance with the principles of natural justice in
proceedings having civil consequences. However, the applicability of
those decisions to the present controversy would have to be considered
in the context of the facts established on record. The existence of a
dispute on these aspects does not, by itself, require this Court to
undertake a detailed factual inquiry in the exercise of writ jurisdiction
when a statutory appellate remedy is available.
25. The Petitioner has also questioned whether the relevant links and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:06:39
W.P.(C) 6040/2026 Page 7 of 9

time slots for the proposed virtual hearings were communicated to it.
The Respondent, on the other hand, maintains that the hearing notices
were duly issued and that the Petitioner failed to participate. The extent
to which the hearing notices were communicated, and whether the
procedure adopted afforded a meaningful opportunity of hearing, are
issues that may be examined by the appellate authority upon
consideration of the relevant record.
26. In this regard, it is also relevant to notice that the Petitioner has
questioned the manner in which the audit observations and the
explanations furnished in response to the Audit Memo were dealt with
in the proceedings culminating in the Impugned Order. The Petitioner
alleges that the demand has been confirmed mechanically, without due
consideration of the facts and material placed before the Department.
The Respondent disputes these allegations and maintains that the
adjudication was undertaken in accordance with law.
27. The aforesaid contentions, insofar as they concern the
consideration of the Petitioner’s explanations, the basis of the demand
and the correctness of the determination under Section 74 of the CGST
Act, are also matters which may be urged before the statutory appellate
authority. This Court does not consider it appropriate, in the present
proceedings, to enter into the merits of the tax demand or to return
findings on the correctness of the adjudication when the Petitioner has
an efficacious appellate remedy available.
28. In view of the availability of the statutory remedy under Section
107 of the CGST Act, and having regard to the nature of the
controversy raised, this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner may
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:06:39
W.P.(C) 6040/2026 Page 8 of 9

appropriately pursue its grievances before the appellate authority. All
contentions, including those concerning the service of notices, the
alleged violation of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, the consideration
of the Petitioner’s explanations and the merits of the demand, are left
open to be urged in accordance with law.
29. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Petitioner is relegated to
the statutory appellate remedy available under Section 107 of the CGST
Act. The present Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly, without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the Impugned Order or the rival
contentions raised by the parties.
30. It is clarified that all contentions are left open to be raised before
the appellate authority, which shall consider the same independently
and in accordance with law. The pending application also stands
disposed of.
31. It is further clarified that, in the event the Petitioner files an
application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking
exclusion of the period during which the present Writ Petition remained
pending, the same shall be considered by the appellate authority in
accordance with law.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J

BHARAT PARASHAR, J
OCTOBER 28, 2026
s.godara/shah
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:06:39
W.P.(C) 6040/2026 Page 9 of 9