Natural Justice Can't Be 'Sheet Anchor' To Bypass GST Appeal Remedy: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High court has ruled that a taxpayer cannot bypass the statutory appellate remedy under the GST law and directly invoke writ jurisdiction merely by alleging a violation of the principles of natural justice.

Holding that such pleas must be supported by specific facts, the court observed, "Taking refuge under natural justice in every case, as a sheet anchor would not justify filing of a Writ Petition under Art. 226, sans justification in the manner the law mandates. This more particularly where statute clearly provides for orders that are appealable. In such situations, it thus becomes incumbent upon the Court to separate the 'grain from the chaff' and judiciously exercise discretion conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution, in an exceptional case, under compelling circumstances."

"We are conscious that extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under the Constitution ought not to be exercised in a routine matter, deviating from settled judicial principles in this regard. Section 107 of the CGST Act prescribes an appellate remedy. In the given factual complexion, we are not persuaded to accept the Petitioner's case, by adopting a course which would water down the legislative intent, purport and purpose of the said section.", the court added.

A division bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Advait M. Sethna delivered the ruling while dismissing a writ petition filed by Mahapuja Ltd., which had challenged an order passed by the Additional Commissioner of CGST.

The case stemmed from proceedings over the alleged wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit and GST dues of around ₹6.50 crore.

The petitioner argued that the adjudication proceedings violated the principles of natural justice. It contended that the department seized books of accounts, business records and electronic devices during search operations without preparing an inventory. It also claimed the relied-upon documents were not supplied before the adjudication order was passed, leaving it unable to effectively respond to the show cause notice.

Opposing the petition, the Revenue argued that the impugned order was appealable under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, making the writ petition not maintainable.

Moreover, a show cause notice nad teh documents relied on for it ws already served to the taxpayer on his email.

The high court agreed with revenue on this account. It noted that the order as well as the necessary documents was emailed on June 28, 2025. It was again sent on June 28,2025. The taxpayer had failed to prove non-delivery of any of the documents relied on by the department or further prove any prejudice.

The bench observed that bald assertions, unsupported by particulars or material on record, were not enough to invoke the high court's extraordinary jurisdiction.

Relying on recent Supreme Court and Bombay High court rulings, it reiterated that writ petitions should ordinarily not be entertained where an effective statutory remedy exists unless a recognised exception is made out through proper pleadings and supporting material.

The high court dismissed the petition as not maintainable. It, however, granted the petitioner four weeks to file a statutory appeal before the appellate authority, making it clear that it had not examined the merits of the underlying tax dispute.

For Petitioner: Advocates D.V. Sawant, with Priyank Kulkarni and Sampada Jadhav, instructed by Gaurav Borse.

For Respondent (CGST Department): Subir Kumar, with Saket Ketkar and Ashita Aggarwal, Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Additional Government Pleader, with Suraj Gupte, AGP.