Writ jurisdiction is inappropriate where disputed facts can be examined through an efficacious statutory appeal.

The Department received information that Vikrant Singhal, Sachin Singhal and Pradeep Kumar were arranging invoices without actual supply of goods.

A search was conducted on 9 October 2024 at their residential and business premises, during which invoices, e-way bills, transport documents, electronic data and cash of ₹22,96,550 were seized.

The Department alleged that several firms managed by them were involved in issuing and availing fake invoices and ineligible input tax credit.

The Additional Commissioner, CGST Delhi West, passed a consolidated Order-in-Original dated 26 December 2025 against 629 firms and individuals, which was subsequently rectified on 25 June 2026.

The names of the Petitioners appeared at Serial Nos. 616 and 618 of the order.

The Petitioners challenged the order under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that no specific role was attributed to them in the Show Cause Notice dated 30 June 2025, that their detailed replies were not considered, and that they had allegedly entered into only one transaction with M/s Sahuwala Exports Pvt. Ltd.

Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to examine the Petitioners’ objections regarding the alleged non-consideration of their replies and the absence of a specific role attributed to them, despite the availability of a statutory appeal?

Whether the consolidated nature of the Order-in-Original and the disputed factual questions justified relegating the Petitioners to the statutory appellate remedy?

Whether the principle in M/s ASP Traders v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., requiring consideration of a taxpayer’s reply to a show-cause notice through a reasoned order, warranted interference under writ jurisdiction?

The Court applied the established principle that a writ petition ordinarily should not be entertained when an efficacious statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available, particularly where adjudication requires examination of disputed facts.

It further recognised that compliance with natural justice, including consideration of a reply to a show-cause notice and issuance of a reasoned order, may be examined by the statutory appellate authority.

The Court distinguished M/s ASP Traders v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 2025 (7) TMI 1525 (SC), because that case concerned an order against an individual assessee and did not involve a consolidated adjudication against more than 600 firms and individuals.

The Court noted that the Petitioners had an available statutory right of appeal against the Order-in-Original.

Although the Petitioners alleged that their replies were ignored and that no specific role was attributed to them, determining whether those submissions were properly considered, and identifying the precise role of each Petitioner in the alleged transactions, involved factual examination.

The impugned order was a detailed consolidated order running to approximately 1,880 pages and dealt with statements, accounts, invoices and transactions concerning numerous firms.

The adjudicating authority had also recorded findings regarding the alleged creation of 107 fake firms and the involvement of the principal persons in the racket.

In these circumstances, the Court held that the disputed factual issues were more appropriately examined in appeal and that the decision in ASP Traders did not justify bypassing the statutory remedy.

Both Petitioners were relegated to the statutory remedy of appeal.

The writ petitions and all pending applications were accordingly disposed of, and a copy of the order was directed to be placed in the connected matter.