Jharkhand High Court Refuses To Entertain Writ Against Delayed GST Order, Cites Alternative Remedy

The Jharkhand High Court refused to entertain a writ petition challenging a GST adjudication order passed after a delay of five years, holding that the taxpayer must avail themselves of the statutory appellate remedy instead of invoking writ jurisdiction.

A bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar observed that where a statutory appeal is available, the High Court should not ordinarily entertain a writ petition.

The Court noted, “Since the petitioner has an alternate remedy provided by the Statute itself, ordinarily, the petitioner cannot be allowed to bypass the statutory regime and insist upon the adjudication of several issues raised to challenge the Order-In-Original directly before this Court.”

It further held:

“The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be exercised to frustrate the statutory regime provided in the Statute.”

The court noted that while the issue of delayed adjudication is presently under consideration before the Supreme Court, that by itself does not justify bypassing the appellate mechanism. It reiterated that writ jurisdiction is confined to judicial review and cannot substitute appellate proceedings.

The issue involved was whether an adjudication order passed after an alleged unreasonable delay of five years from the show cause notice could be directly challenged before the High Court, particularly when an effective alternative remedy of appeal exists under the GST law.

Chronologically, Sujata Udit Builders Pvt. Ltd. challenged the Order-in-Original dated September 29, 2025, arguing that the show cause notice had been issued in September 2020 and that passing the adjudication order after five years rendered it invalid due to delay. The petitioner also pointed to the pending proceedings before the Supreme Court in the GMR Airport Infrastructure matter and requested that the High Court keep the writ petition pending until the issue is settled.

The petitioner also argued financial incapacity to comply with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement for filing an appeal. However, the revenue opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy and that similar petitions had been dismissed earlier.

The Court noted that the Supreme Court in the GMR Airport Infrastructure matter is examining the broader issue of delayed adjudication and has observed that hearings on such issues may be deferred. However, it emphasized that the present petition involved multiple grounds beyond delay, including issues requiring factual adjudication, which are better suited for appellate proceedings.

Rejecting the petitioner's contention regarding financial hardship, the court held:

“The right to appeal is never an inherent right. The right to appeal is subject to a pre-deposit, and challenges to this requirement have already been rejected.”

It added:

“Based upon the audited accounts alone, we cannot accept the petitioner's contention that the petitioner is unable to pay the pre-deposit amount, and to that extent, the alternate remedy is not efficacious.”

The court reiterated:

“The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be exercised to frustrate the statutory regime provided in the Statute.”

It reiterated that deviation from the rule of exhausting alternative remedies must be exceptional.

Accordingly, the court declined to entertain the writ petition and relegated the petitioner to the statutory appellate remedy, granting liberty to file an appeal within four weeks. It further directed that if such an appeal is filed, it shall be considered on merits without being dismissed on limitation.

The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to avail the alternate remedy, keeping all contentions, including delayed adjudication, open.

For Petitioner: Senior Advocate M. S. Mittal, Advocate Salona Mittal, Advocate Lavanya Gadodia Mittal, Advocate Yashdeep Kanhal, Advocate Arya Vardhan Singh, Advocate Divya Choudhary, Advocate Sourav K. Jha

For Respondents: Senior Standing Counsel Amit Kumar (CGST), Junior Standing Counsel Anurag Vijay (CGST)