M/S Windlass Developer Private Limited vs. The Additional Commissioner CGST

Facts

M/s Windlass Developer Private Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand challenging an order-in-original dated 30.03.2026. This order was passed by the Additional Commissioner CGST and Additional Director (respondents) under Section 76 and Section 74(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The impugned order fastened a tax liability of Rs. 53,94,34,346/- upon the petitioner. The petitioner alleged a breach of the principles of natural justice in the passing of this order, despite the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act.

Held

The High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court noted that while the petitioner alleged a breach of the principles of natural justice, they also attempted to assail the order on merits. The Court was not inclined to go into the merits of the order, including the applicability of Section 74(9) and the quantum of tax liability, in view of the availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner was granted liberty to avail this alternative remedy if they were so advised. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts generally do not entertain writ petitions on merits when an efficacious alternative remedy is available, even if there are allegations of procedural irregularities, unless exceptional circumstances warranting interference under writ jurisdiction are present.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an order-in-original when an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is available, particularly when the petitioner alleges a breach of principles of natural justice? (Question of law). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without providing the tentative findings of the audit team, thus violating the principles of natural justice. They also argued that Section 74(9) of the Act was wrongly invoked and assailed the order on merits regarding the quantum and other aspects. Respondents' arguments: The respondents did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. However, the Court's inclination to dismiss the petition suggests that the availability of the alternative remedy was a primary consideration.