HC Rejects Writ Against GST SCN and OIO Due to Alternate Remedy

Case Details: Punj Lloyd Ltd.-Varaha Infra Ltd. (JV) vs. Union of India [2026] 186 taxmann.com 1278 (Rajasthan)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

Inderjeet Singh & Sandeep Taneja, JJ.
Sharad Kothari & Chirag Soni for the Petitioner.
Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG, Rishabh Dadhich, HVS Chandrawat, Associates & Rajvendra Saraswat for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner challenged a consolidated show cause notice (SCN) issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act and the Rajasthan GST Act for multiple tax periods, along with the consequential Order-in-Original (OIO), by way of a writ petition. It contended that the consolidated SCN was without jurisdiction and assailed the validity of the proceedings initiated thereunder. It was noted that the SCN had been duly served upon the petitioner and that the petitioner had participated in the adjudication proceedings without initially challenging the SCN. The adjudicating authority granted an opportunity of hearing and thereafter passed a speaking and reasoned OIO addressing the objections raised during the adjudication. The petitioner nevertheless invoked writ jurisdiction, alleging a violation of principles of natural justice and questioning the legality of the consolidated proceedings. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that Section 107 of the CGST Act and the Rajasthan GST Act provide an efficacious statutory appellate remedy against orders passed by the adjudicating authority. The Court held that although the existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction, such jurisdiction is ordinarily invoked only in exceptional circumstances. It was observed that the petitioner had participated in the adjudication proceedings, had been afforded an opportunity of hearing, and that the adjudicating authority had passed a reasoned and speaking OIO after considering the objections raised. It was further held that no violation of principles of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or other exceptional ground warranting interference under Article 226 was established and that a writ petition does not ordinarily lie against a mere SCN. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 to challenge the OIO.

List of Cases Reviewed

Super Service Point v. Union of India [2026] 182 taxmann.com 409/114 GST 132 (SC)
Trillion Lead Factory (P.) Ltd. v. Superintendent of Central Tax [2026] 184 taxmann.com 558/108 GSTL 4/115 GST 133 (SC)
Tanushree Logistics (P.) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan [2022] 145 taxmann.com 523/97 GST 500 (Rajasthan) (Para 9) followed

List of Cases Referred to

Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority [Civil Appeal No. 5393 of 2010, dated 1-2-2023] (para 2.1)
J. Sri Nisha v. Special Director, Adjudicating Authority, Directorate of Enforcement [SLP (Civil) No(s). 23415 of 2025, dated 17-2-2026] (para 2.1)
Milroc Good Earth Developers v. Union of India [2025] 179 taxmann.com 465/112 GST 596/[2026] 104 GSTL 45 (Bombay) (para 2.2)
Titan Company Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise [2024] 159 taxmann.com 162 (Madras) (para 2.2)
State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Caltex (India) Ltd. 1965 SCC Online SC 168 (para 2.2)
Uno Minda Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner, Anti Evasion [DBCWP No. 7290 of 2025, dated 25-7-2025] (para 2.2)
Ashok Jain & Co. v. Union of India [DBCWP No. 14105/2025, dated 18-9-2025] (para 2.2)
Meridean Overseas Education Consultants (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [DBCWP No. 15990/2025, dated 6-11-2025] (para 2.2)
Kota Metals v. Additional Commissioner (Adjudication) [DBCWP No. 19707/2025, dated 16-12-2025] (para 2.2)
Hamid Traders v. Additional Commissioner (Adjudication) [DBCWP No. 19706/2025, dated 16-12-2025] (para 2.2)
Rathi Bars v. Additional Commissioner CGST and Central Excise Commissioner [DBCWP No. 7378/2025, dated 7-10-2025] (para 2.2)
SK Metals v. Additional Commissioner (Adjudication) [DBCWP No. 19711/2025, dated 16-12-2025] (para 2.2)
S J Constructions v. Asstt. Commissioner [2025] 178 taxmann.com 570/102 GSTL 348 (Andhra Pradesh) (para 2.2)
Gyankeer Tobacco Products (P.) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner, Central Excise and Central GST Commissionerate [2026] 186 taxmann.com 349 (Rajasthan) (para 2.2)
Trillion Lead Factory (P.) Ltd. v. Superintendent of Central Tax [2026] 184 taxmann.com 558/108 GSTL 4/115 GST 133 (SC) (para 3.2)
Tanushree Logistics (P.) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan [2022] 145 taxmann.com 523/97 GST 500 (Rajasthan) (para 3.2)
Mathur Polymers v. Union of India [2025] 177 taxmann.com 860/103 GSTL 72 (Delhi) (para 3.2)
Asstt. Commissioner of State Tax v. Commercial Steel Ltd. [2021] 130 taxmann.com 180/88 GST 799/52 GSTL 385 (SC) (para 5)
Super Service Point v. Union of India [2025] 178 taxmann.com 463 (Gujarat) (para 6)
Super Service Point v. Union of India [2026] 182 taxmann.com 409/114 GST 132 (SC) (para 6.2).