2026-VIL-993-DEL

SGST High Court Cases

GST - Scope of High Court interference under Article 226 when statutory remedy is available, Distinction between denial of hearing and challenge to merits of adjudication - Show Cause Notice was issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act alleging fraud, wilful misstatement and suppression of facts - Whether, notwithstanding the availability of an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, the High Court should entertain a writ petition under Article 226 when the challenge essentially relates to the correctness of factual findings and appreciation of material placed on record - HELD - Although an alternative statutory remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction, the High Court may entertain a petition under Article 226 only in exceptional circumstances - A distinction must be maintained between a case where a party is denied an opportunity of hearing and one where, despite having been heard, the party disputes the manner in which its defence or documents have been considered. The latter constitutes a challenge to the merits of the adjudication and is ordinarily amenable to the statutory appellate remedy - In the present case, the Petitioner participated in the adjudication proceedings, filed a detailed reply to the SCN and placed documents in support of its defence. The Petitioner did not demonstrate any patent denial of an opportunity to present its case. Accordingly, the grounds urged did not disclose any manifest violation of the principles of natural justice or exceptional circumstance warranting exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 - The writ petition is dismissed - Validity of Consolidated Show Cause Notice Covering Multiple Financial Years - The Petitioner contended that a single Show Cause Notice could not have been issued covering the financial years 2017-18 to 2021-22 - Whether the statutory scheme under the CGST Act permits issuance of a consolidated Show Cause Notice covering multiple financial years - HELD - The statutory scheme does not prohibit issuance of a consolidated notice covering multiple financial years. Sections 73(3) and 74(3) of the CGST Act employ the expressions for any period and for such periods, whereas Sections 73(10) and 74(10) refer to the financial year for the purpose of prescribing the limitation for passing the order. The distinction is material and the fact that the limitation prescribed is computed with reference to the financial year does not impose a requirement that a separate Show Cause Notice must necessarily be issued for each financial year - The statutory language contemplates a notice relating to a period which may extend beyond one financial year. Particularly in cases involving alleged fraudulent availment or utilisation of input tax credit, transactions spread across different financial years may be required to be examined together to ascertain the alleged pattern of fraud or suppression. The mere issuance of a consolidated Show Cause Notice covering multiple financial years does not constitute a patent lack of jurisdiction warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution - The consolidated Show Cause Notice covering multiple financial years is valid and does not constitute a jurisdictional defect. The question of limitation with respect to individual demands shall be examined by the appellate authority in accordance with law.

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page