TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 840
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in Item No. 93 For the Respondent: Ms. Anushree Narain, SCC with Mr. Apurv Yadav and Mr. Naman Choula, Advs. in Items No. 94, 96 & 97., Mr. Gibran Naushad, SCC with Mr. Suraj Shekhar Singh, Mr. Anish Mishra, and Mr. Hasan Haider, Advs. for R-2 in Items No. 93, 95 & 98. Mr. Rahul Sambher, SPC for R-2 in Item No. 97, Ms. Monica Benjamin, SCC along with Ms. Laiba Arif, & Ms. Prerika Narang, Advs. for R-2 to R-4 in Item No. 99. For the UOI: Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC with Ms. Himanshi Singh & Ms. Monalisha Pradhan, Advs. in Item No. 101., Mr. Harsh Pratap Shahi, SPC with Mr. Dev Pratap Shahi & Ms. Hitaishi Tulsyan, Advs. for R-1in Item No. 101., Mr. Shlok Chandra, Standing Counsel with Mr. Parikshit Singh Bhati & Ms. Lolita D Crasta, Advs. for R-2 and R-3 in Item No. 101. ORDER PER (ORAL) ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.: 1. At the outset, it may be noted that the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal against the Orders-in-Original impugned in the majority of the present Writ Petitions is not disputed by learned counsel representing the Petitioners. 2. The present batch of Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arises out of a common investigation con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laimed by the respective Petitioners differ depending upon the stage of proceedings assailed and the notices issued against them, the principal challenge centres around the alleged violation of the principles of natural justice, the reliance placed by the Department upon electronic records and handwritten kachcha parchis allegedly recovered from the premises of M/s Arora Communication, the absence of independent corroborative material connecting the respective Petitioners with the alleged transactions, and the legality of the proceedings initiated and concluded on the basis thereof. 6. Insofar as the Writ Petitions challenging the Orders-in-Original are concerned, the said orders are appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act. Nevertheless, the Petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution principally on the ground that the proceedings are vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice, non-consideration of their replies and documentary evidence, denial of an effective opportunity of hearing, and other procedural infirmities, which, according to them, bring the present cases within the recognised excepti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m with the alleged transactions have been brought on record. 12. Pertinently, the procedural course adopted in respect of the respective Petitioners was not identical. While several Petitioners filed replies to the respective SCNs and relied upon documentary material in support thereof, in certain cases no reply was filed. Likewise, the position regarding personal hearing also varies from case to case. Certain Petitioners contend that no effective opportunity of personal hearing was afforded or that no notice of hearing was served upon them. Others assert that though virtual hearings were scheduled, they could not be effectively conducted owing to technical and connectivity issues at the Department's end and repeated requests for physical hearing were ignored. In certain cases, opportunities were granted but the noticee did not appear. Some Petitioners also allege coercive conduct during investigation, including deposits obtained during search proceedings, whereas others contend that no search was conducted at their premises and that they have been implicated solely on the basis of material allegedly recovered from M/s Arora Communication. 13. Thereafter, Orders-in-Original c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ces in which the amount came to be deposited. 19. Per contra, learned counsel representing the Respondents raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the Writ Petitions, contending that the Orders-in-Original are appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act and that none of the recognised exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy is attracted. 20. It is submitted that the Petitioners were duly served with the SCNs and were provided opportunity to file their replies and participate in the adjudication proceedings. According to the Respondents, the Orders-in-Original were passed after considering the material on record and the Petitioners merely seek re-appreciation of evidence, which falls within the jurisdiction of the statutory appellate authority. 21. It is further submitted that, during the course of hearing, it was apprised to the Court that the Petitioner in W.P.(C.) No. 2179/2026 has already preferred an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act against the Impugned Order dated 26.12.2025, vide Diary/File No. 821/BO/GST/Commr./Appl.-1/2026. It is, therefore, contended that having already invoked the statutory appellate remedy in respect of the very or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... jurisdiction. In Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Others v. Commercial Steel Limited (2022) 16 SCC 447, the Supreme Court reiterated that notwithstanding the availability of an efficacious statutory remedy, the High Court may entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in exceptional circumstances, namely, where there is: (i) breach of fundamental rights; (ii) violation of the principles of natural justice; (iii) excess of jurisdiction; or (iv) a challenge to the vires of a statute or delegated legislation. The Supreme Court further observed that the mere assertion of one of the aforesaid grounds would not, by itself, justify bypassing the statutory remedy. The High Court is required to independently examine whether the facts of the case disclose circumstances warranting the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction notwithstanding the availability of an efficacious appellate remedy. 26. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present batch of Writ Petitions does not disclose any circumstance warranting interference under Arti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....opriately considered by the statutory appellate authority. 31. It is also necessary to bear in mind that the procedural position is not identical in respect of all the Petitioners. The material placed before this Court reflects that, in certain cases, replies were filed and considered and opportunities of personal hearing were afforded. In some cases, replies were not filed. In certain other cases, the concerned noticee did not appear despite opportunities having been granted. There are also cases where the manner in which the opportunity of hearing was afforded is disputed. Thus, the mere fact that the nature or extent of opportunity afforded may differ from one noticee to another cannot, by itself, establish a violation of the principles of natural justice in every case, much less constitute a common ground for interference in the entire batch. 32. Whether a particular Petitioner was afforded an adequate opportunity, whether such opportunity was duly availed, and whether any prejudice was occasioned by the procedure adopted are matters necessarily dependent upon the individual adjudication record. Such grievances, including a request for remand or for an opportunity to plac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anted in the facts of each case and whether any prejudice was occasioned by its denial, are questions which cannot be determined without examining the underlying record. Such issues are therefore appropriately left to the statutory appellate authority. 37. Certain Petitioners have further contended that they were implicated solely on the basis of material recovered from the premises of M/s Arora Communication, notwithstanding that no search was conducted at their own premises. This contention again goes to the sufficiency and evidentiary value of the material relied upon by the Department. The question whether the material recovered from a third party was sufficient to connect a particular Petitioner with the alleged transactions is a matter which requires examination of the evidence pertaining to each individual Petitioner and is not, by itself, indicative of a patent lack of jurisdiction. 38. The contention regarding the amount allegedly obtained during search proceedings under coercion and subsequently reflected as a voluntary payment through DRC-03 also involves disputed questions of fact. Whether the payment was voluntary, the circumstances in which it came to be deposit....