Case Law Details
Sri Sarang Steel Vs State of Jharkhand through the Secretary-cum-Commissioner (Jharkhand High Court)
The Jharkhand High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order dated 30 December 2023 passed under Section 73(9) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (JGST Act). The Court held that disputed factual allegations regarding non-service of notices could not ordinarily be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution when a statutory appellate remedy was available.
The petitioner approached the High Court contending that the impugned order was passed ex parte and that there was no alternate or equally efficacious remedy available except by invoking writ jurisdiction. The Court, however, found this statement to be “completely misleading” because the petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the JGST Act against the adjudication order.
The Court observed that it was the petitioner’s duty to disclose the availability of the appellate remedy and thereafter explain why the Court should nevertheless entertain the writ petition despite the existence of such remedy. According to the Court, the petitioner was not justified in stating that no alternate remedy existed.
The petitioner argued that no show cause notice had been served before the adjudication order was passed and that no notice granting an opportunity of hearing under Section 75(4) of the JGST Act had been issued. It was contended that issuance of show cause notice and grant of hearing were statutory requirements as well as part of the principles of natural justice and fair play. On this basis, the petitioner submitted that the Court should not insist upon exhaustion of alternate remedies.
In response, the State authorities filed a counter affidavit asserting that notices had been duly served. The respondents stated that an ASMT-10 notice under Rule 99(1) of the JGST Rules, 2017 was issued on 8 September 2023 through the petitioner’s registered email address, granting an opportunity to explain discrepancies in returns filed by the petitioner.
The respondents further stated that a detailed show cause notice in Form DRC-01 under Section 73(1) of the Act dated 24 November 2023 was uploaded on the GSTN portal and also sent to the petitioner’s registered email address. According to the respondents, despite proper service of notices, the petitioner neither submitted any explanation nor produced supporting documents. The respondents also stated that the adjudication order under Section 73(9) and GST DRC-07 were communicated through the GST portal.
The petitioner denied having received any such intimation or notices and claimed that knowledge of the impugned order was acquired only in the last week of July 2025 upon receipt of a reminder letter dated 24 July 2025.
The High Court observed that the pleadings regarding non-service of notices were not very clear and that the issue of service of notices constituted a seriously disputed question of fact. The Court held that such disputed factual issues could not ordinarily be resolved in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Court noted that the respondents had specifically stated on oath that notices were served through registered email addresses and uploaded on the GST portal, while the petitioner merely denied these assertions. The writ petition itself was instituted on 11 October 2025, and even assuming the petitioner obtained knowledge of the order only in July 2025, there was no satisfactory explanation for the delay in approaching the Court.
The Court further observed that if the petitioner genuinely became aware of the order at a later stage, it could still pursue the statutory appeal by establishing the date of knowledge before the appellate authority. However, the Court clarified that such questions regarding delayed knowledge and limitation were also disputed factual matters that needed adjudication before the appropriate forum. The Court emphasized that a mere assertion of belated knowledge could not automatically justify extension of limitation.
The respondents relied on the Supreme Court decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors. vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited to contend that where a complete statutory mechanism exists for challenging assessment orders, parties should not bypass such remedies by filing writ petitions.
Accepting the respondents’ submissions, the High Court held that the alternative statutory remedy should not be bypassed merely on disputed allegations of violation of natural justice. Since the case involved contested factual disputes regarding service of notices, the Court declined to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition without costs while granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal against the impugned order in accordance with law. The Court kept all contentions of the parties open for consideration by the appellate authority and also disposed of pending interlocutory applications.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This petition challenges adjudication order dated 30.12.2023 issued under Section 73(9) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
3. In paragraph 30, the petitioner has made a statement that it has no alternate or equally efficacious remedy other than to move before this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. This is because the impugned order is ex parte.
4. We must say that this statement is completely misleading, and on this ground itself, this petition deserves to be dismissed. As against the impugned order, the petitioner has a remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the said Act. Therefore, it was a duty of the petitioner to disclose that the order is appealable. After such a disclosure, the petitioner could have always pleaded why, according to the petitioner, the practice of relegating the petitioner to avail of an alternate remedy ought to be bypassed. However, the petitioner was not justified in making a misleading statement that no alternative or efficacious remedy was available in the matter.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the petitioner was not served with any show cause notice before the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 was made. She also contended that no notice granting the petitioner the opportunity of hearing under Section 75(4) of the JGST Act was issued to the petitioner before the impugned order was made. She contended that service of a show cause notice or a notice giving opportunity of hearing under Section 75(4), apart from being a statutory requirement, is one of the facets of observance with the principles of natural Justice and fair play. She submitted that in a case where a violation of natural justice is established, the practice of relegating the petitioner to avail of an alternate remedy is usually not insisted upon.
6. In this case, the respondents have filed a counter-affidavit. In the counter affidavit, there is a clear statement that a notice in form ASMT 10 under Rule 99 (1) of the JGST Rules 2017 vide Reference No. 3260 dated 08.09.2023 was served upon the petitioner through registered e-mail address, giving the petitioner an opportunity to show cause and explain the discrepancies in the returns filed by the petitioner. The petitioner was also informed that if no explanation is received by the aforesaid date, it would be presumed that the petitioner had nothing further to say in the matter and the case would proceed in accordance with law.
7. The counter also states that a detailed show cause notice in DRC-01 under Section 73(1) of the said Act, vide Reference No. 3182, dated 24.11.2023, was issued to the petitioner, and the same was uploaded on the GSTN Portal and sent to the petitioner’s e-mail. The counter affidavit states that despite proper service of the show cause notice, the petitioner did not bother to submit any written/oral explanation or produce any supportive document. The counter also states that the order under Section 73(9) and subsequently issued GST DRC-07 was communicated to the petitioner to the GST Portal.
8. The petitioner, however, disputes everything and states that no intimation or show cause notice was ever received by the petitioner. The petitioner also states that it had no knowledge of the impugned order dated 30.12.2023, and such knowledge was acquired only in the last week of July 2025 upon receipt of a letter/reminder dated 24.07.2025.
9. Apart from the fact that the pleadings in the writ petition about the non-service of notices are not very clear, we think that the issue of service of notices is a seriously disputed question of fact. Such disputed questions of fact cannot ordinarily be resolved by invoking this Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The respondents, on oath, stated that the notices were served at the registered e-mail addresses, and that the show cause notice and the impugned order were uploaded on the GST portal. The petitioner simply denies all this in a petition which is instituted on 11th October 2025.
10. Even if we assume that the statement in paragraph 12 that the petitioner was shocked to receive a letter/reminder dated 24.07.2025, based upon which the petitioner made applications to obtain a peace of orders/order sheets, still, there is hardly any explanation for the delay in instituting this writ petition.
11. Further, if it is indeed the petitioner’s case that the petitioner was unaware of the impugned order and came to know about the order much later, then it will be open to the petitioner to appeal the said order from the alleged date of obtaining knowledge and copies of the order. But again, this is a seriously disputed question of fact which the petitioner will have to establish. A mere statement about belated knowledge can never be sufficient for extending the period of limitation.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors. Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, (2020) 19 SCC 681, to submit that the High Courts should not allow the petitioner to bypass mechanisms provided under the statute. He submitted that when a complete mechanism is provided under the Act for challenging assessment orders, that mechanism alone must be followed, and the writ petition is not maintainable to defeat the statutory scheme.
13. There are several decisions that take the view that the alternative remedy should not be easily bypassed on a disputed allegation of a failure of natural justice. In this case, as noted earlier, the petitioner has firstly made a misleading statement in this petition. In any event, the allegations about failure of natural justice would involve adjudication into seriously disputed questions of fact, which cannot normally be undertaken under our summary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
14. Accordingly, we are satisfied that this is not a fit case to exercise our discretion and allow the petitioner to bypass the statutory remedies available. Entertaining such a petition would not be consistent with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada (supra), as relied upon by Mr Aditya Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.
15. For the above reasons, we dismiss this petition without any order for costs. However, we grant the petitioner liberty to appeal the impugned order in accordance with the law. All contentions of all parties in this regard are left open to be decided by the appellate authority.
16. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, do not survive and are disposed of.
No costs.
Author Bio
