Writ under Article 226 refused against GST SCN; Section 6 CGST objections left to adjudicating authority

HC declined to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to quash the central GST SCN, despite the petitioner's contention that the issues were already concluded by earlier State GST orders and barred by Section 6 of the CGST Act. HC held that the applicability and effect of Section 6, the nature and scope of prior State proceedings (including audit), and the petitioner's precise status (including claim of being a government authority) involved disputed factual and legal issues appropriate for adjudication by the statutory authority. The SCN was not "wholly without jurisdiction." The petition was dismissed, with liberty to raise all contentions before the adjudicating authority.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether a writ petition under Article 226 challenging a show cause notice issued by Central GST authorities is maintainable in the face of an alternative statutory remedy and pending adjudication.

1.2 Whether the impugned show cause notice can be termed as "wholly without jurisdiction" on the ground that, in view of Section 6 of the CGST Act and prior proceedings/orders by State GST authorities on the same subject matter, the Central authorities lacked jurisdiction to initiate proceedings.

1.3 Whether, in the facts of the case, any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances existed so as to justify bypassing the statutory mechanism and invoking the writ jurisdiction at the show cause notice stage.

---

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Maintainability of writ petition against a show cause notice despite availability of statutory remedies

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court)

2.1 The Court referred to the principles governing interference under Article 226 at the show cause notice stage and in the presence of alternative remedies, as explained in precedents such as Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademark, Union of India v. Coastal Container Transporters Association, Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Chairman, Central Board, Direct Taxes, Malladi Drugs and Pharma Ltd. v. Union of India, State of Maharashtra v. Greatship (India) Limited, United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and its own earlier decisions, including Rishi Techtex Ltd. and Oberoi Constructions Ltd.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.2 The Court noted that the petition was directed only against a show cause notice, and the respondents contended that the petitioner must first respond to the notice and raise all factual and legal defences before the adjudicating authority.

2.3 The Court observed that several factual issues were involved, including the scope and nature of earlier State GST proceedings, the scope of the proposed proceedings by Central authorities, the character of one of the relied-upon orders as an audit order, and the precise status of the petitioner (including whether it is covered under notifications relied upon by it).

2.4 Relying on the cited Supreme Court decisions, the Court reiterated that litigation against mere show cause notices is not to be encouraged; that writ jurisdiction at the notice stage is ordinarily not to be exercised unless the notice is totally non est in law or there is an absolute want of jurisdiction even to investigate facts; and that issues of jurisdiction, classification, and other legal premises can and should be urged first before the authority issuing the notice.

2.5 The Court also followed its own earlier decisions (including Rishi Techtex Ltd. and Oberoi Constructions Ltd.) where writ petitions challenging show cause notices in similar circumstances had been declined on the ground of availability of alternative remedies and the need for factual adjudication.

Conclusions

2.6 The Court held that this was not a fit case to entertain a writ petition against a show cause notice and that the petitioner should be relegated to respond to the impugned notice and pursue statutory remedies.

2.7 The petition was dismissed as not maintainable at this stage, with liberty to the petitioner to raise all permissible contentions before the adjudicating authority and to challenge any final order in accordance with law.

---

Issue 2 - Alleged lack of jurisdiction of Central GST authorities in view of Section 6 of the CGST Act and prior State GST proceedings

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court)

2.8 The petitioner invoked Section 6 of the CGST Act to contend that once State GST authorities had initiated and concluded proceedings on the same subject matter (by orders dated 22 April 2024 and 25 May 2025), Central authorities were barred from initiating parallel proceedings.

2.9 The respondents, through affidavit, contended inter alia that: (a) the petitioner is neither the State Government nor any authority covered under the notifications relied on; and (b) the scope of the two investigations (State and Central) is dissimilar, so Section 6 would not apply.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.10 The Court recorded that the applicability of Section 6 of the CGST Act to the facts of the case is "contentious" and that a detailed review of both sets of proceedings (concluded by State authorities and proposed by Central authorities) would be necessary to determine overlap, scope, and import.

2.11 The Court noted that one of the orders relied upon by the petitioner appears to have been passed in audit proceedings, and the scope of such an audit order under Section 6 would itself require examination.

2.12 The Court also pointed out that the respondents disputed the precise status of the petitioner as a "government authority" or as an entity covered by relevant notifications, and that this question of status must likewise be factually and legally determined in adjudication.

2.13 Considering these unresolved and disputed factual aspects, the Court held that it could not, at this preliminary stage, accept the contention that the impugned show cause notice was "wholly without jurisdiction."

Conclusions

2.14 The Court declined to hold that the impugned show cause notice suffered from an absolute lack of jurisdiction or was non est in law.

2.15 The Court held that the questions regarding Section 6 of the CGST Act, the scope of prior State GST proceedings, the nature of the audit order, and the petitioner's status must all be examined and adjudicated by the authority dealing with the impugned show cause notice.

---

Issue 3 - Existence of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances justifying exercise of writ jurisdiction at show cause notice stage

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court)

2.16 The Court referred to the exceptions carved out in Whirlpool Corporation (regarding lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, and challenge to vires) and to Greatship (India) Limited and Satyawati Tondon, which underscored that Article 226 is not intended to short-circuit or circumvent statutory procedures and that revenue matters ordinarily do not fall within such exceptional circumstances.

2.17 The Court also noted the Supreme Court's observations in Satyawati Tondon deprecating the practice of approaching High Courts under Article 226 primarily to obtain interim orders and delay proceedings.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.18 The Court found that the predicates for invoking the limited Whirpool-type exceptions were not met: the case did not demonstrate a clear lack of jurisdiction, any violation of natural justice at the notice stage, or a challenge to the vires of the statute.

2.19 The matter involved revenue issues for which a complete statutory mechanism for adjudication and appeal was available, and no extraordinary or exceptional circumstances were shown that would render the statutory remedies unsuitable or ineffective.

Conclusions

2.20 The Court held that no case of an extraordinary or exceptional nature had been made out to justify bypassing the statutory procedure and entertaining the writ petition at the show cause notice stage.

2.21 Accordingly, the Court refused to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and declined to quash or interfere with the impugned show cause notice.

---

Ancillary directions

2.22 Considering that the petitioner had been prosecuting the writ petition, the Court extended the time for filing a reply to the impugned show cause notice up to 31 December 2025.

2.23 The Court directed that, if the reply is filed by that date, the adjudicating authority shall dispose of the show cause notice proceedings on their own merits, by dealing with all contentions raised in the reply, and clarified that all contentions of all parties are expressly left open.

2.24 The Court reserved liberty to the petitioner to challenge any order passed in the show cause notice proceedings before the appropriate forum in accordance with law and disposed of the petition without costs.

---