Jharkhand High Court Refuses Writ Against JGST Order Due to Available Appellate Remedy

The Jharkhand High Court in Sri Sarang Steel Vs State of Jharkhand through the Secretary-cum-Commissioner has reiterated that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot normally be invoked to challenge GST adjudication orders where a complete statutory appellate mechanism is available.

The Court dismissed a writ petition filed against an order passed under Section 73(9) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (JGST Act), emphasizing that:

  • The assessee had a clear appellate remedy under Section 107 of the JGST Act.
  • Disputed questions of fact regarding service of notices and date of knowledge are not suitable for determination in writ proceedings.
  • Alleged breach of natural justice, when itself based on contested facts, does not by itself justify bypassing the statutory appeal process.

Background of the Dispute

The assessee challenged an adjudication order dated 30.12.2023 issued under Section 73(9) of the JGST Act.

Grounds Taken in the Writ Petition

The core assertions of the assessee were:

  • The adjudication order was passed ex parte.
  • No show cause notice was allegedly served prior to the order.
  • No separate notice granting an opportunity of personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the JGST Act was issued.
  • There was, according to the petition, no alternate or equally efficacious remedy, and therefore the assessee had to approach the High Court directly under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The assessee further claimed that:

  • It had not received any intimation of ASMT-10, DRC-01, or the final order.
  • It came to know of the impugned order only in the last week of July 2025, upon receiving a reminder letter dated 24.07.2025.

The writ petition itself was filed on 11.10.2025.

High Court’s Strong Disapproval of Misleading Pleading on Alternate Remedy

In paragraph 30 of the writ petition, the assessee had categorically stated that no alternate and efficacious statutory remedy existed other than filing a writ petition.

The High Court found this to be “completely misleading” because:

  • The adjudication order under Section 73(9) was squarely appealable under Section 107 of the JGST Act.
  • It was the duty of the assessee to:
    • Disclose the existence of the appellate remedy, and
    • Then plead special reasons, if any, why the Court should still entertain the writ despite such remedy.

Key Observation: The Court held that making a categorical statement that no alternative or efficacious remedy was available, when Section 107 clearly provides an appeal, was unjustified and by itself a ground to reject the petition.

Assessee’s Plea of Violation of Natural Justice

The learned counsel for the assessee attempted to justify invocation of writ jurisdiction on the ground of breach of natural justice. The submissions included:

  • No show cause notice was allegedly served before issuance of the adjudication order dated 30.12.2023.
  • No hearing opportunity under Section 75(4) of the JGST Act was provided.
  • Issuance of a show cause notice and the grant of an opportunity of hearing are not merely statutory requirements but form part of the principles of natural justice and fair play.
  • In situations of established violation of natural justice, High Courts usually do not insist on exhausting alternate statutory remedies.

On this basis, the assessee contended that:

  • The usual rule of relegation to appellate remedy should not apply.
  • The High Court should itself set aside the order in writ jurisdiction.

Stand of the State Authorities