Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass statutory remedies after voluntarily undertaking to discharge tax liabilities.

The petitioner, a works contractor, challenged an ex-parte summary of order dated 18.02.2025 issued under Section 73(9) of the BGST Act, 2017

The Revenue department alleged that the petitioner claimed excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Rs. 26,29,268/- against an accrued ITC of only Rs. 1,84,419/- as per GSTR-2A

The petitioner claimed the show cause notice (SCN) and subsequent orders were only uploaded in the "Additional Notices and Orders" tab of the GST portal, leading to a lack of effective communication and violation of natural justice

After bank accounts were attached in November 2025, the petitioner provided a written undertaking to pay the dues in installments and submitted three post-dated cheques

Subsequently, after one cheque was encashed, the petitioner filed this writ petition alleging non-service of notice

1. Whether the uploading of notices under the "Additional Notices and Orders" tab on the GST portal constitutes valid service under Section 169 of the BGST Act

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to discretionary writ jurisdiction after having submitted an undertaking and post-dated cheques to the department for the recovery of dues

Section 73 of the BGST Act regarding the determination of tax short-paid or ITC wrongly availed

Rule 142 of the CGST/BGST Rules, which mandates the electronic service of a summary of notice in Form GST DRC-01 and the order in GST DRC-07

Section 169 of the BGST Act, which defines valid modes of service, including communication via the registered email or the common portal

Principle of equity and "clean hands" in the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution

The Court observed that the summary order explicitly mentioned that the last reminder was sent to the petitioner’s registered email address, a fact the petitioner failed to categorically deny with evidence

The Court found that the petitioner’s challenge was purely procedural and "ornamental," as the petition remained silent on the merits of the alleged ITC discrepancy

The Court analyzed the petitioner's conduct: the petitioner had provided a voluntary undertaking (Annexure 'A') and post-dated cheques to unblock bank accounts, thereby taking the benefit of the department's leniency

The Court rejected the argument that the undertaking was signed under duress, noting that the petitioner raised no protest for three months and only filed the writ as an "afterthought" after a cheque was dishonored

The Court found the petition lacked bona fides and was an attempt to backtrack on a settled commitment. Consequently, the Court upheld the recovery proceedings and imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000/- on the petitioner for abusing the judicial process