GST show-cause notice and delayed adjudication time extensions challenged; writ declined, appeal allowed by 31 Jan 2026.

In a writ challenging a SCN and an adjudication order, including the vires of Central/State GST notifications extending the time for adjudication, the HC held that the assessee had already filed a detailed reply relying on invoices and confirmation letters, making the statutory appellate remedy efficacious; the writ was therefore not entertained and the assessee was relegated to appeal. The HC permitted filing of an appeal by 31 January 2026 with the requisite pre-deposit, directed payment of costs of Rs. 10,000 to a court welfare fund, and ordered that an appeal so filed shall not be treated as time-barred and must be decided on merits.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether the Court should adjudicate the merits of the impugned tax demand order and the connected challenge to the impugned notifications, or instead relegate the petitioner to the statutory appellate remedy on the facts of the case.

(ii) Whether, while relegating the petitioner to appeal, the Court should grant protective directions regarding (a) limitation for filing the appeal, (b) access to the GST portal for downloading records, (c) payment of costs, and (d) the effect of pending proceedings before the Supreme Court and a pending lead matter before the Court on the parties' rights.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i): Relegation to statutory appellate remedy instead of writ adjudication

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The petition invoked Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge an adjudication order arising from a show cause notice, and also questioned the validity of certain notifications. The Court noted that similar notification-challenges were already pending consideration before the Supreme Court, and that this Court, in related matters, had disposed of petitions by remand or by relegating petitioners to appellate remedies depending upon factual circumstances.

Interpretation and reasoning: On the facts, the Court recorded that the show cause notice had been issued, the petitioner had already filed a reply relying on invoices and confirmation letters, and a reminder for personal appearance had preceded the impugned order. Given that a substantive reply was already on record and the matter involved appreciation of transactional documents, the Court treated the case as appropriate for adjudication in appeal rather than in writ jurisdiction. The Court also clarified that the petitioner's challenge to the impugned notifications would remain subject to the outcome of the Supreme Court proceedings, and therefore the Court did not finally decide the notification-validity controversy in this petition.

Conclusion: The Court declined to decide the merits of the demand in writ proceedings and disposed of the petition by directing the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal, with additional protective directions.

Issue (ii): Ancillary protective directions while relegating the petitioner to appeal

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court proceeded on the basis that appellate remedy was to be availed, and framed directions to ensure the appeal could be effectively pursued, including addressing limitation and access to relevant documents.

Interpretation and reasoning: To balance equities while relegating the petitioner to appeal, the Court (a) fixed a time window for filing the appeal along with the required pre-deposit; (b) imposed costs payable to a specified institutional welfare fund; (c) directed that GST portal access be provided within a week to enable downloading of necessary documents; (d) protected the appeal from being treated as time-barred if filed within the stipulated date; and (e) expressly made the appellate decision subject to the outcome of the pending Supreme Court proceedings concerning the impugned notifications, and also subject to the decision in a pending lead matter before this Court concerning parallel state notifications.

Conclusion: The Court permitted the petitioner to file the appeal by the stipulated date with pre-deposit and costs; ensured portal access for documents; directed that such appeal would not be treated as barred by limitation if filed within the granted period; and made the appellate outcome subject to the decisions pending before the Supreme Court and the Court in the identified lead matter.

---