Rajasthan High Court refuses to entertain GST writ in presence of appeal remedy under Section 107
Background and context
The Rajasthan High Court, in Prime Metals Vs Central Board of Indirect Taxes And Customs, dealt with a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging multiple actions and provisions under the CGST Act, 2017 and RGST Act, 2017.
The assessee approached the High Court seeking to assail:
- A show cause notice dated 25.06.2025
- An Order-in-Original dated 17.12.2025
- Circular No. 3/3/2017 issued by Respondent No. 1
- The constitutional validity of
Section 16(2)(c)of the **Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 / Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017`
The core controversy before the Court, however, ultimately narrowed down to whether the writ petition was maintainable in light of an available statutory appellate remedy under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act.
Reliefs prayed in the writ petition
The assessee invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court seeking a combination of constitutional and administrative reliefs. The petition contained the following primary prayers:
Quashing of Circular
- A writ in the nature of Certiorari, prohibition, or any other appropriate writ or direction to invalidate Circular No. 3/3/2017 (Annexure-7) issued by Respondent No. 1, on the ground that it was issued without any authority of law.
Declaration of constitutional invalidity
- A declaration that
Sections 16(2)(c)of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 / Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is ultra vires the Constitution of India.
- A declaration that
Challenge to adjudication order
- Quashing and setting aside the Order-in-Original dated 17.12.2025 (Annexure P/6) passed by the adjudicating authority.
Challenge to show cause notice
- Quashing the show cause notice dated 25.06.2025 (Annexure P/4).
Residual relief
- Any other consequential or appropriate relief deemed fit by the Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Grievance of the assessee
The principal factual ground projected on behalf of the assessee was that the adjudication proceedings culminating in the Order-in-Original dated 17.12.2025 suffered from a violation of principles of natural justice.
Allegation of denial of cross-examination
- Learned counsel for the assessee argued that:
- No opportunity of cross-examination of relevant witnesses or persons whose statements may have been relied upon, was afforded during the adjudication.
- This alleged denial of cross-examination was contended to be a serious procedural defect affecting the legality of the Order-in-Original.
- On this basis, the assessee requested direct interference by the High Court, bypassing the appellate mechanism.
Stand of the respondents
Counsel representing the respondents, including the Central tax authorities, objected to the maintainability of the writ petition. Their submissions focused primarily on the existence of an alternative statutory remedy and the settled judicial position on interference at the stage of show cause notice or against appealable orders.
Argument on alternative remedy
- The respondents emphasized that:
- The assessee had a specific statutory right of appeal under
Section 107(1)of the CGST Act against the Order-in-Original dated 17.12.2025. - Since such an appellate remedy was:
- Effective
- Adequate
- Directly available against the adjudication order
the High Court should refrain from exercising extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
- The assessee had a specific statutory right of appeal under