Disposed¶20

Raj Kumar Gupta Prop Rajasthan Steel Corporation v. Additional Commissioner & Anr.

Delhi HC8 Jul 2026W.P.(C)/8494/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court, 08.07.2026, W.P.(C) 8415/2026, 8494/2026, 8497/2026; CGST Act 2017 Section 74 assessment/show cause notice orders challenged; alternate remedy doctrine; appeal under Section 107 CGST Act; writ jurisdiction refused despite natural justice plea (third personal hearing opportunity cancelled); Radha Krishan Industries (Civil Appeal No. 1155/2021, SC) distinguished; Article 226; petitions disposed of with liberty to appeal; Bench: Anil Kshetarpal & Shail Jain, JJ.; keywords: GST, CGST, alternate statutory remedy, personal hearing, Appellate Authority.

What did the court decide?

No relief on the writ petitions; the Petitioner was left free, if so advised, to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act and to raise all grounds before the Appellate Authority. ¶20

Raj Kumar Gupta Prop Rajasthan Steel Corporation Vs… — GST and Indirect Tax | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petitions assailing the Impugned Orders should be entertained despite the admitted availability of a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. +2 more

¶15

Court's answer

In view of the availability of an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petitions; the Petitioner, if so advised, may avail the said remedy.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The decision in Radha Krishan Industries (supra) dealt with an order of provisional attachment under Section 83 of the HP GST Act and the scope of interference under Article 226 in the peculiar facts of that case; it does not lay down that the existence of an alternate statutory remedy can be ignored in every case where a plea of violation of the principles of natural justice is raised.

¶18

Key takeaways

The grievance sought to be urged by the Petitioner (insufficient opportunity of hearing) can appropriately be examined by the Appellate Authority while exercising jurisdiction under Section 107 of the CGST Act.ratio¶18
The Petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all grounds, including those urged before this Court, before the Appellate Authority.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF DELHI (Anil Kshetarpal & Shail Jain, JJ.) — Order dated 08.07.2026 in three connected writ petitions, W.P.(C) 8415/2026, W.P.(C) 8494/2026 and W.P.(C) 8497/2026 (Raj Kumar Gupta prop. Rajasthan Steel Corporation v. Additional Commissioner, CGST & Anr.): The petitions assailed assessment orders dated 31.01.2025 and 04.02.2025 (‘Impugned Orders’) passed pursuant to Show Cause Notices under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017. The Court noted that the correctness of the Impugned Orders can admittedly be challenged by appeals under Section 107 of the CGST Act. Counsel relied on M/s Radha Krishan Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 1155/2021, SC, judgment dated 20.04.2021) to urge writ jurisdiction on the ground of violation of natural justice, alleging that the date fixed for the third of three opportunities of personal hearing was cancelled. The Court held that Radha Krishan Industries concerned a provisional attachment under Section 83 of the Himachal Pradesh GST Act and the scope of Article 226 interference in the peculiar facts of that case, and does not lay down that an alternate statutory remedy can be ignored in every case where violation of natural justice is pleaded; the grievance could appropriately be examined by the Appellate Authority under Section 107. The three writ petitions were disposed of, with liberty to the Petitioner to raise all grounds, including those urged before this Court, before the Appellate Authority.

¶1

$~1 to 3

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 8415/2026, CM APPL. 39422/2026, CM APPL. 39423/2026 and CM APPL. 39424/2026 RAJ KUMAR GUPTA PROP RAJASTHAN STEEL CORPORATION .....Petitioner Through: Mr. A. K. Babbar, Mr. Sanyam Malik and Mr. B. K. Tripathi, Advs. versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX, & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Akash verma, SSC along with Ms. Aanchal Uppal, Adv.

¶4

(2)

¶5

- W.P.(C) 8494/2026, CM APPL. 39519/2026, CM APPL. 39520/2026, CM APPL. 39521/2026 and CM APPL. 42058/2026 RAJ KUMAR GUPTA PROP RAJASTHAN STEEL CORPORATION .....Petitioner Through: Mr. A. K. Babbar, Mr. Sanyam Malik and Mr. B. K. Tripathi, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Akash verma, SSC along with Ms. Aanchal Uppal, Adv.

¶8

(3) + W.P.(C) 8497/2026, CM APPL. 39524/2026, CM APPL. 39525/2026 and CM APPL. 39526/2026 RAJ KUMAR GUPTA PROP RAJASTHAN STEEL CORPORATION .....Petitioner Through: Mr. A. K. Babbar, Mr. Sanyam Malik and Mr. B. K. Tripathi, Advs. versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX, & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Akash verma, SSC along

¶9

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2026 at 11:43:57

¶10

with Ms. Aanchal Uppal, Adv.

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

¶12

¶13

O R D E R 08.07.2026

¶14

These three (03) connected Writ Petitions have been filed assailing the correctness of the assessment orders dated 31.01.2025 and 04.02.2025 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Orders’]. The Impugned Orders have been passed pursuant to the issuance of Show Cause Notices under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017 [hereinafter referred to as ‘CGST Act’].

¶15

Admittedly, the correctness of the Impugned Orders can be challenged by filing appeals under Section 107 of the CGST Act. 3. Learned counsel representing the Petitioner submits that sufficient opportunity of hearing was not granted, inasmuch as the Respondents were required to afford three (03) opportunities of personal hearing, whereas the date fixed for the third opportunity was cancelled. Be that as it may, the Petitioner is at liberty to raise this ground before the Appellate Authority.

¶16

Learned counsel representing the Petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment dated 20.04.2021 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1155/2021, captioned M/s Radha Krishan Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors ., to contend that this Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction where there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice. 5. This Court has considered the aforesaid submission. In Radha Krishan Industries (supra) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the validity of an order of provisional attachment passed under

¶17

¶18

Section 83 of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and examined the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution in the peculiar facts of that case. The said decision does not lay down that the existence of an alternate statutory remedy can be ignored in every case where a plea of violation of the principles of natural justice is raised. In the facts of the present case, the grievance sought to be urged by the Petitioner can appropriately be examined by the Appellate Authority while exercising jurisdiction under Section 107 of the CGST Act.

¶19

Keeping in view the aforesaid position, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petitions in view of the availability of an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal. The Petitioner, if so advised, may avail the said remedy. Needless to observe that the Petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all grounds, including those urged before this Court, before the Appellate Authority.

¶20

With the aforesaid observations, these three (03) Writ Petitions stand disposed of.

¶21

A photocopy of the order passed today be kept in the connected matter(s).

¶22

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

¶23

SHAIL JAIN, J.

¶24

JULY 08, 2026 s.godara/ pal

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2026 at 11:43:57

Raj Kumar Gupta Prop Rajasthan Steel Corporation v. Additional Commissioner & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Gupta Prop Rajasthan Steel Corporation v. Additional Commissioner & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nazir Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner & Anr.

Ajay Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Gian Chand & Ors.

Darshan Lal & Ors. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Master Sorabh Rathor through His Guardian Smt Savitri Vs North Delhi Public School and Ors.

Sudhir Rana Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Parth Shokeen (Proprietor Parth Enterprises) Vs Sales Tax Officer Class Ii/Avato Ward 62 Zone 5 & Ors.

Rajendra Thakur & Anr. Vs Govt of NCT Delhi & Anr.

M/S Navalai Enterprises Vs the Commissioner of Customs (Airport and General)

Indian Council of Medical Research & Anr. Vs Dr. Deepika Singh Saraf & Ors.

M/S Pee Gee International Vs Principal Commissioner of Cgst, Delhi North

Commissioner of Customs (Airport and General) - New Delhii Vs M/S Jbm Logistics

Nurhidaya Dalina Binti Aziz Vs the Commissioner of Customs

M/S Sai Decorative Gallery LLP & Anr. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)