M/S. Best Security Services vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Best Security Services, through its proprietor Kuldeep Chaturvedi, filed a writ petition challenging a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 31.08.2026. The SCN was issued by the Joint Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Raipur Zonal Unit, under Sections 76 and 122 of the CGST Act, 2017, and corresponding SGST Act provisions, as well as Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017. The notice pertains to the tax period from April 2019 to March 2026 and demands GST amounting to Rs. 20,62,01,771/-, along with applicable interest and penalty. The petitioner contended that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction. The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had an efficacious remedy to raise objections before the competent authority.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable at the present stage. The primary challenge raised by the petitioner related to the jurisdiction and competence of the respondent-authority to issue the impugned show cause notice. The Court found that the petitioner had an efficacious remedy to place their objections, including the objection regarding the jurisdiction of the authority and the validity of the proposed levy, before the competent authority. The Court reasoned that allowing the writ petition at this juncture would bypass the statutory mechanism available for addressing such grievances. Therefore, the Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's contentions regarding jurisdiction or the validity of the demand. The operative direction was to grant liberty to the petitioner to submit a detailed reply/objections to the SCN before the competent authority within sixty days of receiving the order. The competent authority was directed to consider and decide these objections, including the jurisdictional aspect, by passing a reasoned and speaking order expeditiously and on its own merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition challenging the Show Cause Notice dated 31.08.2026 is maintainable at this juncture, given the existence of an alternative remedy? (Question of law) The petitioner argued that the Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued by an authority lacking jurisdiction, rendering it liable to be quashed. They contended that the SCN sought to expand the financial years from 2019-20 to 2025-26, which they believed was beyond the authority's competence. The petitioner relied on the principle that a notice issued without jurisdiction is void ab initio. The respondents argued that the objections raised by the petitioner, including the challenge to jurisdiction, could and should be raised before the appropriate/competent authority. They asserted that the SCN was issued under the provisions of Section 76 of the CGST Act, 2017, and therefore, the writ petition challenging the SCN itself was not maintainable at this stage, as the petitioner had an efficacious remedy to present their case before the adjudicating authority.