Swaran Singh vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

2026

Learned counsel representing the Petitioner submits that the proceedings culminating in the Impugned Order have been initiated by Respondent No.3 without juri iction, inasmuch as Respondent No.3 had no territorial juri iction to initiate or adjudicate the proceedings against the Petitioner. It is submitted that the Petitioner has never owned, occupied or carried on business from the premises at 61, Unnayan Commercial Complex, Survey Park, Kolkata, from where Respondent No.3 purportedly assumed juri iction, and has neither any business establishment nor any GST registration in the State of West Bengal. It is further submitted that neither the Show Cause Notice dated 24.07.2024 and Corrigendum dated 02.08.2024 (hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘SCN & Corrigendum’) nor the Impugned Order discloses any material establishing a territorial nexus between the Petitioner and the State of West Bengal. It is, therefore, contended that the Impugned Order is liable to be set aside in exercise of the writ juri iction of this Court.

This Court has considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the Petitioner.

At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the Impugned Order has been passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act. Against such an order, the statute provides an efficacious appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The appellate authority is competent to examine all questions arising from the Impugned Order, including the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/07/2026 at 15:14:41

It is well settled that where a statute provides a complete mechanism of appeal against an adjudication order, the writ juri iction under Article 226 of the Constitution is ordinarily not exercised, except in exceptional circumstances, such as where the order has been passed wholly without juri iction, there has been a breach of principles of natural justice or fundamental rights, or the vires of a statutory provision is under challenge. The rule requiring exhaustion of the statutory remedy is one of self-imposed restraint consistently followed by constitutional courts. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Others v. Commercial Steel Limited1. 7. In the present case, although learned counsel representing the Petitioner has sought to contend that Respondent No.3 lacked territorial juri iction to initiate the proceedings, the said contention itself arises from the adjudication culminating in the Impugned Order. The issue would necessarily require examination of the factual foundation on the basis of which Respondent No.3 assumed juri iction, the material relied upon during the adjudication and the statutory provisions governing the exercise of such juri iction. These are matters which can appropriately be examined by the appellate authority in proceedings under Section 107 of the CGST Act.

This Court is, therefore, not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petition at this stage.

It is clarified that, in the event the Petitioner prefers an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, the period during which the present Writ Petition remained pending before this Court shall not be reckoned for the purposes of limitation. The appellate authority shall consider the appeal in accordance with law, including the question of limitation, on its own merits and uninfluenced by any observations contained in the present judgment.

All the pending applications shall stand closed.