Facts of the Case

The Petitioner, M/s Raj International, approached the Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging actions/orders passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST.

The grievance primarily arose out of proceedings initiated under the GST regime, wherein the petitioner alleged illegality, arbitrariness, and violation of principles of natural justice in adjudication and/or demand proceedings.

The petitioner, instead of availing statutory remedies under the GST framework, invoked writ jurisdiction seeking quashing of the impugned order and consequential reliefs.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable in GST matters when statutory appellate remedies are available?
  2. Whether the impugned order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice warranting interference by the High Court?
  3. Whether exceptional circumstances existed to bypass the statutory remedy under the GST Act? 

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, including lack of proper hearing and non-consideration of submissions.
  • The authority acted arbitrarily and beyond jurisdiction under the CGST Act.
  • The petitioner argued that existence of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar, particularly when:
    • There is procedural illegality
    • There is violation of fundamental rights
    • The order is without jurisdiction

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The Respondent (Department) contended that the writ petition is not maintainable due to availability of an effective statutory appellate remedy under the CGST Act.
  • It was argued that:
    • The petitioner is attempting to bypass the statutory scheme
    • No exceptional circumstance exists to invoke writ jurisdiction
    • The impugned order was passed in accordance with law and procedure

Court’s Findings / Order

  • The Delhi High Court reiterated the settled principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be exercised when an efficacious alternative remedy is available.
  • The Court observed that:
    • The GST framework provides a complete appellate mechanism
    • Judicial discipline requires parties to exhaust statutory remedies first
  • The Court found no exceptional circumstances such as:
    • Patent lack of jurisdiction
    • Gross violation of natural justice
  • Accordingly, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition and relegated the petitioner to avail statutory remedies.

Important Clarification by the Court

  • The Court clarified that mere allegation of procedural irregularity is insufficient to bypass statutory remedies.
  • Writ jurisdiction can be invoked only in rare and exceptional cases, such as:
    • Complete absence of jurisdiction
    • Violation of fundamental rights
    • Manifest injustice

Sections / Legal Provisions Involved

  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India
  • Relevant provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 (Appellate Mechanism)
  • Principles of Natural Justice

Link to download the order -  https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/68927052025CW40962025_173948.pdf 

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.