M/S. Dnc Infrastructure Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA

CW/2744/2026HC RajasthanGSTCNR RJHC02010863202629 April 2026Bench: INDERJEET SINGH,ASHOK KUMAR JAIN4 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Dnc Infrastructure Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated 30.04.2024 and a subsequent order dated 02.11.2025 passed by the Joint Commissioner (Respondent No. 6). The petitioner contended that the proceedings initiated under Section 122 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, were based on a show cause notice issued by Respondent No. 5, who was allegedly not the "proper officer" as defined under Section 2(91) of the CGST Act. The petitioner also claimed a lack of opportunity for cross-examination. The respondents argued that an alternative remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner against the order dated 02.11.2025.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act before the appellate authority. Consequently, the Court was not inclined to interfere with the matter through a writ petition. The reasoning was based on the established legal principle that writ petitions are generally not maintainable when an equally efficacious alternative remedy is available. The Court cited Supreme Court judgments reinforcing this principle. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the "proper officer" or the denial of cross-examination, as these issues were to be raised before the appellate authority. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all legal and factual grounds before the appellate authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the proceedings initiated under Section 122 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, pursuant to the Show Cause Notice dated 30.04.2024, are legally sustainable, given that the notice was allegedly issued by an authority who was not the "proper officer" within the meaning of Section 2(91) of the CGST Act, as indicated by Circular No. 254/11/2025-GST dated 27.10.2025? 2. Whether the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity for cross-examination during the proceedings? Petitioner's contentions: The proceedings are ultra vires the statute and legally unsustainable because the authority issuing the show cause notice was not the proper officer. The petitioner also claims a denial of the opportunity for cross-examination. Respondents' contentions: The petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal against the order dated 02.11.2025. They relied on Supreme Court judgments in M/s. Trillion Lead Factory Private Ltd. Vs. Superintendent of Central Tax and Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Ors. Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, and a Division Bench judgment of the same High Court in Tanushree Logistics Private Limited. Vs. State of Rajasthan, emphasizing the availability of the appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act.

Sections Cited

Section 122, Section 2(91), Section 107(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[2026:RJ-JP:18114-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2744/2026 1. M/s. Dnc Infrastructure Private Limited, Through Its Managing Director Dirishala Naresh Chowdary, Having Registered Office At 13A, Parvati Nagar Extension, Janpath, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302019. 2. Shri Dirishala Naresh Chowdary, Managing Director Of M/s. Dnc Infrastructure Private Limited Flat No.115, House No. 1-62/1, K Square, Kavuri Hills, Madhapur Road, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 034 ----Petitioners Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi-110001. 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Finance, 1St Floor, Main Building, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Goods And Services Tax Council, Through Its Revenue Secretary, 5Th Floor, Tower Ii, Jeevan Bharti Building, Janpath Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110 001. 4. Principal Director, Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax Intelligence, 5Th Floor, Tower Ii, Jeevan Bharti Building, Janpath Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110 001. 5. Additional Director, Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax Intelligence, Hyderabad Zonal Unit, H. No. 1- 63/2/212, Plot Nos. 211 And 212, Block - B, Kavuri Hills, Guttala Begumpet, Madhapur, Hyderabad - 500033. 6. Joint Commissioner, Cgst And Central Excise Commissionerate, N.c.r Building, Statue Circle, C - Scheme, Jaipur - 302005. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Divay Prakash Modi For Respondent(s) : Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rathore Mr. Akshay Bhardwaj [2026:RJ-JP:18114-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-2744/2026] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

Order 29/04/2026

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with following prayers: It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to: i) Issue writ of Certiorari for quashing: Show Cause Notice No. 11/2024-25-GST dated 30.04.2024 along with Form GST DRC-01 of even date (Annexure P-2), and Subsequent and consequential Order No. 33 (GST) JP/AY/2025- 26 dated 02.11.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by the respondent no. 6 i.e. Joint Commissioner, on the ground that the proceedings initiated under Section 122 Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, pursuant to the said Show Cause Notice Dated 30.04.2024 (Annexure P-2), were issued by Respondent No. 5, who, at the relevant time, was not the "proper officer" within the meaning of Section 2(91) CGST Act. The absence of lawful assignment of functions is evident from Circular No. 254/11/2025-GST dated 27.10.2025 (Annexure P-9), thereby rendering the impugned proceedings ultra vires the statute and legally unsustainable. ii) Pass such or similar order as deem fit in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the show cause notice as well as original order passed by the adjudicating authority.

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that no opportunity of cross-examination was given to the petitioner.

[2026:RJ-JP:18114-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-2744/2026]

Learned counsel for respondent(s) opposed the submissions and submitted that the petitioner is having an alternative remedy of appeal against the order dated 02.11.2025 passed by the adjudicating authority.

Learned counsel for respondent(s) has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s. Trillion Lead Factory Leave to appeal (C) No. 7101/2026 decided on 27.02.2026 wherein it has been held as under: "It is trite law that no writ lies against an issuance Commissionerate Vs. M/s. Krishna Was (P) Ltd., in Civil Appeal No. 8609/2019 disposed of on 14.11.2019 vide Paragraph-2."

(D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17550/2022 decided on 07.12.2022) wherein the Division Bench has already considered the provision of appeal under Section 107 of CGST Act and observed that alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner before the appellate authority.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

Considering the fact that the petitioner is having statutory alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107(1) of the CGST

[2026:RJ-JP:18114-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-2744/2026] Act before the appellate authority, we are not inclined to interfere in this matter.

Hence, the instant writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to raise all his grounds, legal and factual before the appellate authority. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J JYOTI /19

Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.