Availability of Alternative Statutory Remedy Under CGST Act Bars Writ Jurisdiction Absent Exceptional Violations

The Petitioner challenged an Order-in-Original dated 24.03.2026 passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, which confirmed a demand of approximately ₹8.75 crores.

The demand primarily concerned the classification of catering services and pre-packaged food as a composite supply taxable at 18%.

The Petitioner participated in audit proceedings, replied to show-cause notices, and attended personal hearings.

However, the Petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226, alleging a violation of natural justice because the adjudicating authority did not request further documents before concluding the liability.

1. Whether the Petitioner made out exceptional circumstances to justify the invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 despite the availability of an efficacious statutory remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act.

2. Whether the adjudicating authority’s failure to request additional documents, after the Petitioner had already submitted replies and evidence, constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice.

The court applied Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which provides a comprehensive statutory mechanism for appeals.

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax v. Commercial Steel Limited, which established that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can only be exercised bypassing an alternative remedy in four exceptional cases: (i) breach of fundamental rights, (ii) violation of principles of natural justice, (iii) excess of jurisdiction, or (iv) challenge to the vires of a statute.

The court also noted that the mere assertion of these grounds is insufficient without independent judicial verification of the facts.

The court reasoned that the Petitioner was provided adequate opportunity to be heard, having participated in the audit, replied to multiple memos and the SCN, and attended personal hearings.

The court rejected the Petitioner's contention that natural justice imposes an "inflexible requirement" on an officer to request more documents if the initial ones are deemed insufficient; rather, the officer must adjudicate based on the existing record.

The court determined that questions regarding the adequacy of evidence, the sufficiency of the officer's reasons, or the correctness of the factual findings are matters of merit to be addressed by the statutory Appellate Authority, not the Writ Court.

Furthermore, prior decisions cited by the Petitioner (Malaysia Airlines and Future Generali) were distinguished as they did not address the specific bar of alternative remedies under the CGST Act.

The Writ Petition was dismissed, with the Petitioner granted liberty to file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act.

The court directed that the time spent pursuing the writ petition be excluded for the purposes of calculating the limitation period for the appeal.