Writ Petition Maintained Despite Availability of Alternative Remedy as Quasi-Judicial Authority Ignored Request for Extension to Submit Documents
In a significant judgment delivered on October 29, 2026, the Delhi High Court (Division Bench) quashed an adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST), Delhi South Commissionerate, New Delhi, on grounds of violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner, Adit Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., challenged the order dated November 24, 2023, contending that it was passed without granting a reasonable opportunity to defend, specifically highlighting the failure of the CGST authority to consider their request for additional time to submit crucial documents.
The case arose when the petitioner, a registered dealer under the Service Tax Department, received a show cause notice and duly replied to it on May 23, 2022. Personal hearings were conducted, initially fixed for November 7, 2023, and later adjourned to November 15, 2023, at the petitioner's request. On November 15, the petitioner sought an extension till November 24, 2023, to produce further documents, but this request was neither considered nor rejected by the adjudicating authority. The CGST Commissioner proceeded to pass the impugned order on November 24, 2023, citing the petitioner's failure to produce relevant documents as a ground.
The Court observed that once the request for extension was made and not addressed, the authority could not validly proceed to adjudicate without considering it. The Bench emphasized that at the very minimum, the quasi-judicial authority was expected to either accept or reject the application for extension before passing any order. By ignoring this request, the order was rendered unsustainable and violative of the principles of natural justice.
Responding to the respondents' contention that sufficient opportunity had been granted, the Court noted that although an opportunity until November 15, 2023, was provided, the petitioner was entitled to have their subsequent request considered. The Court rejected the argument that the petitioner had nine days to file documents before the order was passed, pointing out that the order was passed on the very day the extension was sought, thereby denying the petitioner any real chance to comply.
Importantly, the Court also addressed the maintainability of the writ petition in the presence of an alternative remedy of appeal under indirect tax laws. While the usual practice restricts writ petitions when an efficacious statutory remedy exists, the Court invoked the exception recognized in the Supreme Court judgment of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks (1998), holding that writ jurisdiction is maintainable in cases involving breach of natural justice. Thus, the petitioner was permitted to seek judicial review through the writ petition.
Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the CGST Commissioner for fresh adjudication starting from November 15, 2023 - the stage where the proceedings had stood before the order was passed. To ensure procedural fairness, the petitioner or their authorized representative was directed to appear before the CGST office on December 2, 2026, at 11:00 a.m., after which the authority is to proceed strictly in accordance with law.
This judgment underscores the critical importance of adherence to natural justice principles by quasi-judicial authorities and clarifies that failure to consider requests for extensions in adjudication proceedings can vitiate orders, even when statutory remedies exist.
Bottom Line:
Writ petition against adjudication order under indirect tax law is maintainable despite alternative remedy of appeal where the impugned order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice; failure of quasi-judicial authority to consider or decide request for extension of time to file additional documents renders the order unsustainable.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Central Goods and Services Tax Act (indirect tax law provisions referenced)
