Case Law Details
Prime Metals Vs Central Board of Indirect Taxes And Customs (Rajasthan High Court)
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated 25.06.2025, an Order-in-Original dated 17.12.2025, Circular No. 3/3/2017, and the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017/RGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that no opportunity of cross-examination had been provided during the adjudication proceedings.
The respondents opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioner had an effective alternative statutory remedy of appeal against the adjudication order. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s decision in M/s. Trillion Lead Factory Private Ltd. v. Superintendent of Central Tax, wherein it was held that writ petitions against show cause notices are generally not maintainable. The respondents also relied on the Rajasthan High Court’s Division Bench decision in Tanushree Logistics Private Limited v. State of Rajasthan, which recognized the availability of an appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
After hearing the parties and examining the record, the Court observed that the petitioner had a statutory alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act before the appellate authority. In view of the availability of this remedy, the Court declined to interfere in the matter. The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to raise all legal and factual grounds before the appellate authority.
Read SC Judgmention this case: SC Examines Constitutional Validity of Section 16(2)(c) as Bona Fide Recipient Denied ITC
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with following prayers:
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayer that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue an writ of Certiorari or prohibition or any other appropriate writ/order/direction;
a. To quash the Circular no. 3/3/2017 (Annexure-7) issued by Respondent No. 1 being without authority from law.
b. To declare Sections 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/ Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 as ultra vires the Constitution of India;
c. To quash and set aside OIO dated 17.12.2025 (Annexure P/6);
d. To quash SCN dated 25.06.2025 (Annexure P/4);
e. Any other relief as this Hon’ble Court may deem fir and proper in the fact, circumstance and legal position of the case and in law to the petitioner.”
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the show cause notice as well as original order passed by the adjudicating authority.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that no opportunity of cross-examination was given to the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for respondent(s) opposed the submissions and submitted that the petitioner is having an alternative remedy of appeal against the order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the adjudicating authority.
5. Learned counsel for respondent(s) has relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of M/s. Trillion Lead Factory Private Ltd. Vs. Superintendent of Central Tax, Special Leave to appeal (C) No. 7101/2026 decided on 27.02.2026 wherein it has been held as under:
“It is trite law that no writ lies against an issuance of show cause notice and such writ petition would not be maintainable. This position has been explained to by this Court in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Ors. Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, (2012) 11 SCC 565 and in the judgment of Commr. of Central Excise Commissionerate Vs. M/s. Krishna Was (P) Ltd., in Civil Appeal No. 8609/2019 disposed of on 14.11.2019 vide Paragraph-2.”
6. Learned counsel for respondent(s) further placed reliance upon judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Tanushree Logistics Private Limited. Vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17550/2022 decided on 07.12.2022) wherein the Division Bench has already considered the provision of appeal under Section 107 of CGST Act and observed that alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner before the appellate authority.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
7. Considering the fact that the petitioner is having statutory alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act before the appellate authority, we are not inclined to interfere in this matter.
8. Hence, the instant writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to raise all his grounds, legal and factual before the appellate authority.
Author Bio
