MRJS Lead Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of State Tax And Ors. (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a batch of petitions filed by MRJS Lead Private Limited and others, ruling that a writ petition is not maintainable when a statutory appeal is already available and has been invoked. The court’s decision, issued on September 20, 2025, emphasizes the principle of exhausting alternative remedies, particularly in fiscal matters where specialized appellate bodies have expertise. The petitions challenged adjudication orders and notices issued under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.
The petitioners had already filed appeals against the adjudication orders to meet a statutory deadline. Their counsel, Mr. Butekar, argued that the High Court should still hear the petitions because the notices lacked allegations of fraud or willful misstatement, a prerequisite for proceedings under Section 74. He contended that this was a jurisdictional error, which permits bypassing the alternative remedy. He also raised a jurisdictional issue, claiming that the State tax authorities lacked the authority to issue such notices. To support this claim, he cited the Supreme Court’s decision in M/s. Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors., and the Bombay High Court’s ruling in Armour Security (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate. He suggested that the Central Authorities had acknowledged this lack of jurisdiction in an affidavit.
