Case Law Details
Gvk Jaipur Expressway Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Rajasthan High Court)
The writ petition challenged the Order-in-Original dated 29.01.2024 passed in Form GST DRC-07, by which a tax demand of ₹1,88,30,530 for the financial year 2017-18 was raised. The order also imposed interest of ₹2,14,60,613 and penalty of ₹1,88,30,530. The petitioner further challenged the letter dated 19.12.2025 issued in Form GST DRC-13 to its bank, creating a lien on its bank account.
At the outset, the Rajasthan High Court noted that, in similar circumstances involving the same petitioner for the financial year 2018-19, a coordinate Bench had already dismissed a writ petition on 18.03.2026 after observing that the petitioner had challenged an Order-in-Original without availing the statutory appellate remedy.
The respondent objected to the maintainability of the present writ petition, contending that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act against the Order-in-Original dated 29.01.2024. Since the petitioner had not availed that remedy, the writ petition was stated to be not maintainable.
The petitioner submitted that it was unaware of the impugned order, as it had not been separately communicated and had only been uploaded on the common GST portal.
The High Court observed that the impugned order had been passed on 29.01.2024 and that the petitioner had an effective statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act. It recorded that the petitioner had admittedly not filed the appeal within the prescribed period of three months and had instead approached the High Court in February 2026, approximately 21 months after expiry of the limitation period for filing the appeal.
The petitioner explained that it had wound up its business activities in Rajasthan on 10.04.2023 and, therefore, was not expected to visit the GST portal regularly. It contended that uploading the order on the GST portal did not amount to proper communication.
The Court rejected this explanation. It held that the alleged winding up of business activities in Rajasthan could not justify the petitioner’s failure to monitor the GST portal when it continued to remain registered with the respondent department and held a valid GST registration. The Court observed that the petitioner had been negligent in not availing the appropriate statutory remedy and had subsequently taken the plea that it was not expected to visit the GST portal.
The High Court further noted that the impugned order showed that a show cause notice in Form DRC-07 had been issued to the petitioner. However, the petitioner neither filed any reply nor sought an extension of time. It also recorded that an opportunity of physical hearing had been granted, but no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. On these facts, the Court concluded that there had been no violation of the principles of natural justice.
In view of the dismissal of the petitioner’s similar writ petition for the financial year 2018-19, the petitioner’s failure to avail the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act, and the filing of the writ petition about 21 months after expiry of the limitation period without any cogent reason, the High Court declined to entertain the writ petition. Although the petitioner advanced submissions on the merits of the matter, the Court declined to examine them in light of its findings on maintainability.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and all pending applications were also disposed of.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
1. The present writ petition is directed against the order- in- Original dated 29.01.2024 passed by the respondent No.1 in Form No. GST DRC-07, whereby the demand of Tax amounting to Rs.1,88,30,530/- for the financial year 2017-18 has been raised. By the said order, interest amounting Rs.2,14,60,613/- as well as penalty of Rs.1,88,30,530/- has also been imposed. The petitioner has also challenged the letter dated 19.12.2025 issued by the respondent department to the petitioner’s Bank in Form No. GST DRC-13 creating lien on the bank account of the petitioner.
2. At the outset it is relevant to mention here that in the similar circumstances, in the case of petitioner itself for the Financial Year 2018-19, a coordinate Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3636/2026 (GVK Jaipur Expressway Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax) decided on 18.03.2026, dismissed the writ petition wherein also without availing the alternative remedy of appeal, challenge was laid to an order-in-Original.
3. Aside above, learned counsel for the respondent raises objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition stating that the petitioner had an alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act to challenge the impugned order dated 29.01.2024. Learned counsel further submits that since the petitioner has failed to avail the aforesaid remedy, the present writ petition is not maintainable.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not aware of the impugned order as the same was not communicated to the petitioner and was only uploaded on common GST portal.
5. We find that the impugned order was passed on 29.01.2024, against which the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act. Admittedly, the petitioner did not avail the said remedy within the statutory period of three months and has directly approached this Court by way of the present writ petition which has been filed in the month of February, 2026 i.e. almost 21 months after the expiry period for filing the appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act.
6. The reason given by the petitioner is that the petitioner-company had wound up business activity from Rajasthan on 10th April, 2023 and therefore, the petitioner was not supposed to visit the GST portal regularly and as such, uploading of the impugned order on the GST portal was not a proper communication.
7. We are not convinced with the said submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Alleged winding up of its business from the State of Rajasthan cannot be a ground for the petitioner to say that it was not supposed to visit the GST portal when the petitioner continues to be registered with the respondent department and hold valid GST number. Apparently the petitioner has been negligent by not taking the appropriate remedy against the impugned order and now as an after thought has taken an excuse that it was not supposed to visit the GST portal.
8. From the impugned order, it also transpires that the petitioner was issued a show cause notice in Form No. DRC-07, however the petitioner neither filed any reply nor sought any extension. Moreover, opportunity of physical hearing was given to the petitioner, however on the said date, no one appeared on its behalf. We are thereof the view that there is no violation of principle of natural justice.
9. As an upshot, in view of similar writ petition for F.Y. 2018-19 having already been dismissed, as well as the petitioner having failed to avail the efficacious alternative statutory remedy provided under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act and has filed the writ petition after 21 months from the expiry of the limitation period prescribed for filing the appeal without any cogent reason, we are not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also made some submissions on the merits of the matter, however, in light of the above discussion, we are not inclined to deal with the same.
11. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
12. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
Author Bio
