M/S Pit Zone Through Its Proprietor Anubhav Jain vs. Superintendent, Central GST

Held

The Court addressed two issues. On the first issue concerning the validity of the composite notice, the Court agreed with the decision in M/S SA Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. Union of India, finding the composite notice to be valid and repelling the challenge raised by the petitioner. Therefore, no interference was warranted on this ground. On the second issue, the Court sustained the preliminary objection raised by the revenue regarding the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal. The Court recognized that factual disputes were involved, requiring detailed consideration, and that writ jurisdiction should not be easily invoked to bypass an equally efficacious statutory remedy of appeal. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere in the present writ petition. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition, leaving it open for the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, with the observation that the appeal, if preferred, would be dealt with on its own merits without prejudice from any observations made in this order. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/S Pit Zone, challenged an Adjudication Order dated 03.03.2026, passed by the Superintendent, CGST, Ghaziabad, concerning tax periods 2019-2020 to 2021-2022. The petitioner raised two grounds: first, that a composite notice dated 29.09.2025, issued for these tax periods, was impermissible and without jurisdiction. Second, the impugned order was allegedly passed solely based on a CAG audit without independent satisfaction by the adjudicating authority. The revenue contended that the issue of composite notices was decided in their favour by a coordinate bench in M/S SA Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. Union of India. Regarding the second issue, the revenue argued that factual disputes existed and the order was passed after affording due opportunity of hearing. The revenue also raised a preliminary objection regarding the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Key Issues

1. Whether a composite notice issued for multiple financial years (2019-2020, 2020-2021, and 2021-2022) is impermissible in law and without jurisdiction, as argued by the petitioner? The revenue relies on the decision in M/S SA Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. Union of India, 2026:AHC:14559-DB, which held such notices to be valid. 2. Whether the impugned Adjudication Order was passed solely on the strength of a CAG audit without independent satisfaction by the adjudicating authority, as contended by the petitioner? The revenue argues that factual disputes exist, and the order was passed after due opportunity of hearing, thus invoking the principle that writ jurisdiction should not bypass statutory remedies. The revenue further raises a preliminary objection that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017.