Gvk Jaipur Expressway PVT. LTD. vs. Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. It found that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act to challenge the impugned order dated January 29, 2024. The Court noted that the petitioner had failed to avail this remedy within the statutory period of three months and instead filed the writ petition in February 2026, approximately 21 months after the expiry of the appeal limitation period. The Court rejected the petitioner's reason for not visiting the GST portal, stating that alleged winding up of business in Rajasthan could not absolve the petitioner of its responsibility to monitor the GST portal, especially when it remained registered and held a valid GST number. The Court also observed that the petitioner had neither filed a reply to the show cause notice nor sought an extension, and no one appeared on their behalf despite an opportunity for physical hearing, thus finding no violation of the principle of natural justice. The Court also referred to a similar writ petition filed by the petitioner for the financial year 2018-19, which was dismissed on similar grounds.

Facts

The petitioner, Gvk Jaipur Expressway Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order-in-original dated January 29, 2024, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax. This order raised a demand of Rs. 1,88,30,530/- in tax for the financial year 2017-18, along with interest of Rs. 2,14,60,613/- and a penalty of Rs. 1,88,30,530/-. The petitioner also challenged a letter dated December 19, 2025, which created a lien on its bank account. The petitioner contended that the order was not properly communicated, having only been uploaded to the GST portal. The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act, which it failed to avail within the statutory period.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act, which was not availed within the prescribed limitation period? 2. Whether the uploading of the impugned order on the GST portal constitutes proper communication to the petitioner, especially when the petitioner claims to have wound up business operations in Rajasthan? 3. Whether the principle of natural justice was violated in the passing of the impugned order? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was not communicated to them and was only uploaded on the GST portal. They further submitted that they had wound up business activity in Rajasthan on April 10, 2023, and therefore were not expected to visit the GST portal regularly, making the portal upload an improper mode of communication. They also made submissions on the merits of the matter. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, asserting that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act. They highlighted that the petitioner failed to avail this remedy and directly approached the High Court after a significant delay.