2026 (3) TMI 80 - HC - GST

Writ jurisdiction to challenge show cause notices is generally unavailable; petitioner limited to filing reply for consideration.

A writ under Article 226 is ordinarily not maintainable to adjudicate the merits of a show cause notice issued under Sections 74 and 74A of the Central ... Maintainability of writ against show cause notice - challenge to show cause notice u/s 74 and 74A - admissions in pleadings construed as binding against the petitioner - administrative adjudication as the appropriate remedy; writ not to be entertained against show cause notice - liberty to file reply and requirement that authority consider reply without being influenced by court observations - HELD THAT:- Upon perusal of the pleadings, it is clear that the case of the petitioner himself is that the petitioner is the supplier. This Court in the case of Smt. Rakhi Disawal and Others Vs. Ujjain Vikas Praadhikaran and Others [2024 (7) TMI 1750 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ] has declined to entertain the petition against the show-cause notice considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Special Director Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Anr. [2004 (1) TMI 378 - SUPREME COURT] and the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Sanjay Malveeya and Ors. Vs. State of M.P and Ors [2018 (2) TMI 2154 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] Thus, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition against the show cause notice. Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable to challenge a show cause notice issued under Section 74 and Section 74A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.Analysis: The petition challenges the validity of a show cause notice issued under Sections 74 and 74A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court examined the pleadings and noted that the petitioner himself pleaded that he was the supplier. The Court relied on the established principle that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not available to decide the merits of revenue demands raised by way of a show cause notice, as reflected in binding precedents. The Court observed that the other grounds raised by the petitioner could not be adjudicated in a writ petition which is directed only against the show cause notice. The petitioner was, however, permitted procedural relief to file a reply to the notice and have his contentions considered by the competent authority without prejudice.Conclusion: The writ petition challenging the show cause notice is dismissed; liberty granted to the petitioner to file a reply within 15 days, and the competent authority to consider the reply without being influenced by the Court's observations or the respondent's reply. In favour of Respondent.