Non-Supply Of RUDs, Procedural Lapses In GST Case Must Be Raised In Appeal, Not Writ: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that allegations relating to non-supply of relied upon documents (RUDs) and other procedural lapses in GST proceedings are matters to be examined in statutory appeal and not in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul observed,

“Mere dissatisfaction with the manner in which the adjudicating authority has dealt with the record cannot, by itself, furnish a ground to bypass the statutory remedy and invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.”

The Court thus dismissed the writ petition filed by a courier agency, challenging a demand order passed under Section 74(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 confirming a tax liability of over ₹3 crore.

Petitioner had contended that the adjudication proceedings were vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice, alleging that several relied upon documents forming the basis of the show cause notice were not supplied despite specific requests.

It was further argued that summons were either received belatedly or not served, and that the adjudicating authority failed to consider the reply and documents submitted by the petitioner.

The Court, however, declined to entertain the plea, stating,

“These are not issues which, by their very nature, fall outside the appellate framework. On the contrary, they are matters which have already been considered by the adjudicating authority while passing the impugned OIO. If, according to the petitioner, such consideration is erroneous or legally unsustainable, the statute provides a specific and efficacious remedy by way of an appeal before the competent appellate authority.”

Section 107 of the CGST Act read with Rule 109A of the CGST Rules prescribe statutory appeal from an order of the adjudicating authority.

As such, the petition was dismissed.

The Court clarified that it had not examined the merits of the case and left all contentions open to be raised before the appellate authority.

For Petitioner: Advocates Sparsh Bhargava, Vishal Sinha, Tanya Srivastava and Anmol Kheta.

For Respondent: Babita Saini, SPC for R-3