GST Audit and SCN Challenge Not Maintainable in Writ

Case Details: KCC Dhangaon Boregaon Expressway (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India - [2026] 183 taxmann.com 322 (Madhya Pradesh)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

Vivek Rusia & Pradeep Mittal, JJ.
Harsh Gupta, Adv. for the Petitioner.
Gajendra Singh Thakur, Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, a construction company, was taken under audit by issuance of Form GST ADT-01 and a spot memo. It submitted detailed replies and participated effectively before the competent authority. Subsequently, the final audit report in Form GST ADT-02 was issued, and a personal hearing was conducted, following which a final order under Section 74 of the CGST Act and Madhya Pradesh GST Act was passed. Instead of availing the statutory remedy of appeal, it filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the show cause notice and the audit report on the ground that the final audit report was time-barred. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the petitioner had effectively participated before the competent authority, and a final order under Section 74 had been passed; therefore, the validity of the show cause notice and the audit report could not be challenged by way of a writ petition. The Court observed that writ petitions under Article 226 against assessment orders are not maintainable, and the statutory remedy of appeal must be availed. All grounds raised by the petitioner were required to be presented before the Appellate Authority under Section 65 read with Section 74 of the CGST Act, with any further remedy lying before the GST Tribunal. The Court accordingly dismissed the writ petition in favour of the Department of Revenue.

List of Cases Reviewed

State of Maharashtra v. Greatship (India) Ltd. [2022] 142 taxmann.com 417 (SC)/(2022) 17 SCC 332 (para 11), followed

List of Cases Referred to

Shree Bhawani Paper Mills Ltd. v. State of U.P [Writ Petition (Tax) No.255/2012 of 10-9-2015] (para 8)
Whilpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks (1998) 8 SCC 1 (para 9)
Isha Beebi v. Tax Recovery Officer (1976) 1 SCC 70 (para 9)
Feldohf Auto & Gas Industries Ltd. v. UOI (1998) 9 SCC 710 (para 9)
Paradip Port Trust v. Sales Tax Officer 1998 taxmann.com 2004 (SC) (para 9)
Star Paper Mills Ltd. v. State of U.P. JT (2006) 12 SC 92 (para 9)
State of HP v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. 2006 taxmann.com 1823/[2005] 142 STC 1 (SC) (para 9)
State of M.P. v. Sanjay Nagaich (2013) 7 SCC 25 (para 9)
Southern Electricity Supply Co. of Orissa Ltd. v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill (2012) 2 SCC 108 (para 9)
UOI v. Tantia Construction (P.) Ltd. (2011) 5 SCC 697 (para 9)
UOI v. Mangal Textile Mills (I) (P.) Ltd. (2010) 14 SCC 553 (para 9)
Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner (AA) (2009) 14 SCC 338 (para 9)
Mumtaz Post Graduate Degree College v. University of Lucknow (2009) 2 SCC 630 (para 9)
Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. UOI (2008) 5 SCC 632 (para 9)
BCPP Mazdoor Sangh v. NTPC (2007) 14 SCC 234 (para 9)
Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of U.P. (2007) 8 SCC 338 (para 9)
M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Jahan Khan (2007) 10 SCC 88 (para 9)
A.V. Venkateswaran v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani 1961 taxmann.com 4/[1983] 13 ELT 1327 (SC) (para 9)
Himmatlal Harilal Mehta v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 403 (para 9)
Collector of Customs and Excise, Cochin v. A.S. Bava AIR 1968 SC 13 (para 9)
L.K. VERMA v. H.M.T. Ltd. 2006 taxmann.com 2325/[2006] 108 FLR 1101 (SC) (para 9)
State of Tripura v. Manoranjan Chakraborty (2001) 10 SCC 740 (para 9)
Guruvayur Devasworn Managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan (2003) 7 SCC 546 (para 9)
State of Maharashtra v. Greatship (India) Ltd. [2022] 142 taxmann.com 417 (SC) (para 10).