TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1923
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CGST Act'). As a general rule, where a statute provides a comprehensive mechanism for redressal of grievances through an appellate forum, the High Court, while exercising its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, ordinarily declines to entertain a challenge to an original adjudication order. This rule of judicial restraint is founded upon the well-settled principle that where the legislature has established a specialised adjudicatory framework accompanied by a hierarchy of appellate remedies, an aggrieved party is ordinarily required to exhaust such statutory remedies before invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court. 2. It is, howe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....warrant invocation of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 4. The present Writ Petition has been instituted under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India laying challenge to Order-in-Original No.118/CGST WEST/GST/SAN/ADC/2025-26 dated 10.12.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Impugned Order') passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act read with the corresponding provisions of the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, whereby a penalty of Rs.2,39,30,100/-, equivalent to the input tax credit alleged to have been wrongly passed-on, has been confirmed against the Petitioner. The Petitioner claims that owing to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, its business ceased operations in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ticularly when the Impugned Order itself was ultimately served upon one of the partners at his residential address. Reliance has also been placed upon the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Seagull Maritime Agencies Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 3800/2024, in support of the submission that denial of an effective opportunity of hearing warrants remand of the matter. 6. Per contra, learned counsel representing the Respondent submits that the present Petition is not maintainable in view of the efficacious statutory remedy available under Section 107 of the CGST Act. It is contended that the Petitioner's application seeking cancellation of registration dated 02.04.2021 came to be rejected on 14.05.2024 and, consequ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, cannot be examined in isolation. 9. The rival contentions advanced by the parties give rise to disputed questions of fact regarding the validity and sufficiency of service effected by the Respondent. While the Petitioner asserts that no notice was ever served upon it, the Respondent maintains that the SCN as well as the notices of personal hearing were duly served in accordance with Section 169 of the CGST Act by dispatch through Speed Post at the registered address as well as by uploading the same on the GST portal. The Respondent further disputes the Petitioner's contention regarding cessation of business by asserting that the application for cancellation of registration stood rejected and that the registration continued to subsist....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cability of the said decision itself depends upon determination of the disputed questions of fact regarding service of notices and the effect of the Petitioner's application for cancellation of registration. Those are matters which are more appropriately left to be examined by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act. 12. This Court is, therefore, unable to hold that the present case falls within any of the recognised exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy. The controversy sought to be raised is not one involving an apparent or undisputed violation of the principles of natural justice, but turns upon seriously disputed questions of fact relating to service of notices and the effect of the Petitioner's applicati....