Disputed Sufficiency of Statutory Service Under CGST Act Barred From Writ Jurisdiction for Alternative Appellate Remedy

The Petitioner challenged Order-in-Original No.118/CGST WEST/GST/SAN/ADC/2025-26 dated 10.12.2025, passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 (read with corresponding provisions of the DGST Act and IGST Act), confirming a penalty of Rs. 2,39,30,100/- equivalent to the input tax credit (ITC) allegedly wrongly passed on

The Petitioner claimed its business ceased operations in early 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, that it applied for cancellation of GST registration on 02.04.2021, and did not thereafter access the GST portal

A Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 03.08.2024 was issued, followed by personal hearing notices dispatched via Speed Post on 08.07.2025, 17.07.2025, 25.07.2025 and 19.11.2025; receiving no response, the adjudicating authority passed the ex parte Impugned Order

The Petitioner alleged violation of natural justice—non-service of the SCN and hearing notices—and contended that alternative modes of service under Section 169 (publication or residential addresses of partners) ought to have been adopted, particularly since the Impugned Order itself was served on a partner at his residential address

The Respondent countered that the cancellation application was rejected on 14.05.2024, rendering the registration subsisting, and that service was duly effected under Section 169 via Speed Post at the registered address and by uploading on the GST portal

Significantly, the cancellation application filed by the Petitioner itself recorded the same address at which the notices were served

1. Whether the facts pleaded disclose any exceptional circumstance justifying the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution despite the availability of the appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act.

2. Whether the grievance regarding violation of the principles of natural justice (non-service of the SCN and personal hearing notices) is of such a nature as to warrant invocation of the Court's extraordinary writ jurisdiction, bypassing the statutory appellate mechanism.

The Court applied the principle of judicial restraint regarding alternative remedies, rooted in Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 107 of the CGST Act, holding that where a statute provides a comprehensive appellate mechanism, the High Court ordinarily declines to entertain challenges to original adjudication orders

Assistant Commissioner of State Tax v. Commercial Steel Limited, (2022) 16 SCC 447, which established that the existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction—exceptions include breach of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice, and lack or excess of jurisdiction—but that a mere allegation of an exception is not conclusive; the High Court must satisfy itself that the matter genuinely warrants departure from the ordinary rule

Section 169 of the CGST Act (prescribing permissible modes of service) was also engaged, with the Court noting that questions regarding its application and the sufficiency of service are examinable by the appellate authority

The Court distinguished the Coordinate Bench decision in Seagull Maritime Agencies Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 3800/2024, as rendered on distinguishable facts involving inability to access SCNs uploaded on the GST portal

Applying the Commercial Steel framework, the Court examined whether the pleaded natural justice violation qualified as a genuine exception to the alternative remedy rule, and concluded it did not

The Court reasoned that the core controversy—whether valid service was effected—turned on seriously disputed questions of fact: the Petitioner asserted non-service, while the Respondent maintained due compliance with Section 169 through Speed Post dispatch at the registered address and portal upload

This dispute was further complicated by two factual contestations: the Respondent's assertion that the Petitioner's registration subsisted because its cancellation application was rejected, and the telling circumstance that the Petitioner's own cancellation application recorded the very address at which the notices were served

Such factual appreciation, the Court held, is ordinarily outside the scope of writ jurisdiction

Likewise, whether Section 169's requirements were satisfied, whether alternative modes (publication or service on partners' residences) were mandated, and the consequences thereof were all matters for the appellate authority

The Court distinguished Seagull Maritime on the ground that its applicability itself depended on resolving the disputed facts regarding service and the effect of the cancellation application—unlike the clear inability to access portal-uploaded SCNs in that case

The Court thus found no "apparent or undisputed violation" of natural justice, holding the controversy eminently within the province of the Section 107 appellate authority

The Writ Petition was disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, if so advised

The Court directed that the period during which the Writ Petition remained pending shall be excluded for purposes of limitation, and that the appellate authority shall consider the appeal in accordance with law—including the question of limitation—on its own merits and uninfluenced by any observations in the judgment