The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in M/s. MRJS Lead Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 6247 of 2024, order dated August 26, 2025] held that a writ petition challenging the GST adjudication orders cannot be maintained merely because the show cause notice invoked an allegedly incorrect section when the Petitioner has already availed statutory appellate remedies and that these arguable jurisdictional issues may be raised before the appellate authority and do not justify bypassing the remedy provided by law.
Facts:
M/s. MRJS Lead Private Limited (“the Petitioner”), a registered entity, challenged adjudication orders made pursuant to show cause notices issued under Section 74 of the CGST/MGST Act, alleging denial of proper hearing and jurisdictional incompetency.
The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Ors. (“the Respondent”) passed the impugned orders and opposed the writ, arguing that the Petitioner had already filed an appeal (alternate remedy) and that proper jurisdiction was present.
The Petitioner argued that the State Authorities lacked jurisdiction to issue the notices under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 that required allegations of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression were absent, and that effective opportunity of hearing had been denied.
The Respondent contended that the show cause notices and orders were within limitation and that even if the wrong section was quoted (Section 74 instead of Section 73), the notices were not without jurisdiction. The Respondent further argued that both State and Central authorities had jurisdiction, and that alternative remedy being available and already invoked by the Petitioner, writ should not be entertained.
The Petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226, seeking to quash the impugned orders and notices, alleging denial of natural justice and jurisdictional errors despite having already filed statutory appeals.
Issue:
Whether a writ petition is maintainable against GST adjudication orders and show cause notices on grounds of alleged jurisdictional error or incorrect section reference, when the petitioner has already invoked the alternate appellate remedy?
Held:
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 6247 of 2024 held as under:
- Observed that, the Petitioner had already filed appeals against the adjudication orders.
- Noted that, at best, the questions raised were arguable and could be examined by the appellate authority, including the challenge to the State Authority’s jurisdiction and applicability of correct sections.
- Observed that, the mere quoting of an incorrect section is insufficient to render a show cause notice or order without jurisdiction, especially when such notice could be sustained with reference to correct statutory provisions, i.e under Section 73 instead of Section 74 of the Act, and does not require allegations of fraud for its validity.
- Dismissed the writ petitions, granting liberty for all contentions to be taken up in the pending statutory appeals and clarifying that its observations are only prima facie and do not influence the appellate authority’s decision on merits.
Our Comments:
The Bombay High Court’s ruling is consistent with the settled legal principle that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not ordinarily be invoked in matters involving fiscal statutes where the assessee has already availed an equally efficacious statutory appellate remedy, especially for issues that are at best arguable and not ex-facie jurisdictional errors.
The reasoning directly aligns with Supreme Court dicta such as State of Maharashtra v. Greatship India Ltd.[ Civil Appeal No.4956 of 2022 order dated September 20, 2022] and Bank of Baroda v. Farooq Ali[2025 SCC OnLine SC 374], both of which underscore the primacy of statutory remedies.
The order distinguishes cases where writ jurisdiction may be exercised, such as when there is a glaring violation of fundamental rights or lack of adequate remedy, but holds that mere technical errors in section reference do not meet this threshold. Further, prior cases such as Oberoi Constructions Ltd. v. Union of India [Writ Petition (L) No.33260 of 2023 order dated November 11, 2024] were followed, reconfirming that post-invocation of appellate remedy, a writ is rarely sustainable unless a case of patent injustice or manifest lack of jurisdiction is demonstrated.
In contrast, in Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. v. State of Bihar [Civil Appeal No. 5728 of 2021 order dated September 24, 2021] the Supreme Court allowed the writ as there was no disputed question of fact and the issue was purely of law; however, in the present case, the Bombay High Court distinguished it on grounds that statutory remedy had already been opted for and the issues were not ex-facie legal errors but contentions that could be argued before the appellate authority.
Relevant Provisions:
Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017
“73. Determination of tax pertaining to the period up to Financial Year 2023-24, not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised for any reason other than fraud or any willful-misstatement or suppression of facts.-
(1) Where it appears to the proper officer that any tax has not been paid or short paid or erroneously refunded, or where input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilised for any reason, other than the reason of fraud or any wilful-misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax, he shall serve notice on the person chargeable with tax which has not been so paid or which has been so short paid or to whom the refund has erroneously been made, or who has wrongly availed or utilised input tax credit, requiring him to show cause as to why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice along with interest payable thereon under Section 50 and a penalty leviable under the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder.
…..
(10) The proper officer shall issue the order under sub-section (9) within three years from the due date for furnishing of annual return for the financial year to which the tax not paid or short paid or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised relates to or within three years from the date of erroneous refund.”
Section 74(10) of the CGST Act, 2017
“74. Determination of tax pertaining to the period up to Financial Year 2023-24, not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised by reason of fraud or any willful- misstatement or suppression of facts.-
(10) The proper officer shall issue the order under sub-section (9) within a period of five years from the due date for furnishing of annual return for the financial year to which the tax not paid or short paid or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised relates to or within five years from the date of erroneous refund.”
CLICK HERE FOR OFFICIAL JUDGMENT COPY
(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
