N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi East

Facts

The Petitioner, N.K. Fashion, through its proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal, filed a writ petition challenging a Show Cause Notice dated 28.09.2025 and the consequential Order-in-Original dated 31.12.2025. The impugned order imposed a demand of Rs. 37,27,799.80/- under IGST and a penalty of 10% of the principal amount. The Petitioner contended that the impugned order relied on a report from the Directorate General of Analytics & Risk Management (DGRAM), a legible copy of which was not provided. The Respondent disputed this claim. The High Court noted the availability of an effective alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned order.

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of appeal against the Impugned Order. The issue raised by the Petitioner, concerning the non-supply of a legible copy of the DGRAM report, could be agitated before the Appellate Authority. Recognizing the availability of this alternative remedy and the nature of the issue sought to be adjudicated, the Court was not inclined to exercise its writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the writ petition, along with pending applications, was disposed of, directing the Petitioner to pursue their appellate remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned Order-in-Original dated 31.12.2025, thereby precluding the High Court from exercising its writ jurisdiction? Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed relying on a DGRAM report, a legible copy of which was not supplied to them, raising a procedural irregularity. They sought to have the Show Cause Notice and the consequential Order-in-Original set aside through a writ petition. Respondent's Argument: The Respondent disputed the Petitioner's assertion that a legible copy of the DGRAM report was not supplied. They contended that an effective alternative remedy of appeal was available to the Petitioner against the impugned order.