No Writ when Alternate Remedy Exists: Supreme Court upholds Delhi HC Order in GST S. 74 Demand Matter [Read Order]

The Supreme Court of India declined to interfere with a judgment of the Delhi HighCourt in a GST demand case, reiterating that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when an effective alternate statutory remedy is available.

The case arose from a judgment of the Delhi High Court decided by a Division Bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul where the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the assessee and granted liberty to avail the statutory appellate remedy under the CGST Act.

Power Line Air Express, the petitioner had approached the High Court challenging an Order-in-Original dated 18 December 2025, whereby a GST demand of Rs. 3,00,14,058 was confirmed under Section 74 of the CGST Act for the period April 2018 to March 2024.

Before the High Court, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the proceedings were vitiated due to violation of principles of natural justice, as the relied upon documents were not supplied. The counsel also argued that the adjudicating authority failed to consider the reply and supporting documents submitted by the petitioner and merely reproduced the allegations in the show cause notice.

They further argued that the demand was based on an incorrect understanding of Section 15 of the CGST Act and that the invocation of Section 74 was unwarranted in the absence of fraud, suppression, or wilful misstatement.

The court observed that it was not entering into the merits of the controversy as the matter lay within the domain of the statutory appellate authority. It explained that Section 107 of the CGST Act provides an effective remedy of appeal against orders passed under Section 74.

The court observed that the grievances raised by the petitioner, including non-supply of documents, issues relating to service of summons, and alleged non-consideration of reply, required examination of records and evidence, which is more appropriately undertaken by the appellate authority.

The High Court pointed out that mere dissatisfaction with the adjudicating authority’s findings cannot be a ground to bypass the statutory remedy and invoke writ jurisdiction. It dismissed the writ petition while granting liberty to the petitioner to avail remedies in accordance with law.

Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, observed that it was not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the High Court.

The court explained that if the petitioner chooses to avail the statutory remedy, the appeal may be filed without reference to delay in approaching the Tribunal. It clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. With these observations, the Supreme Court disposed of the Special Leave Petition and left it open for the petitioner to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates