M/S Sri Sarang Steel vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1969 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

M/S Sri Sarang Steel vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 16 March, 2026

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

                                                   2026:JHHC:7193-DB




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
             W.P. (T) No. 7338 of 2025
M/s Sri Sarang Steel, a proprietorship firm, having its principal place of
business at 337, ITI More, Chas, P.O. and P.S.-Chas, Bokaro, through its
proprietor Manoj Kumar, age about 52 years, son of Ram Sundar
Sharma, resident of Sri Sarang Niwas, Sri Ram Vatika, near Angad
Apartment, Chira, Chas, P.O and P.S.-Chas, Bokaro, Jharkhand-827013.
                              ...     ...      ...      Petitioner
                        Versus
1.    The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary-cum-Commissioner,
department of State tax, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.
and P.S:-Dhurwa, Ranchi.
2.    The Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Dhanbad Division, Dhanbad,
having its office at Sector-1, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. and P.S.- Bokaro
Steel City, District: Bokaro.
3.    The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Bokaro Circle, Bokaro,
having its office at Sector-1, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. and P.S.- Bokaro
Steel City, District:- Bokaro.
4.    Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bokaro Circle, Bokaro,
having its office at Sector-1, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. and P.S.- Bokaro
Steel City, District:- Bokaro.
                                         ... ...         ... Respondents
                            ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

---------

For the Petitioner: Miss Amrita Sinha, Advocate Mrs. Shweta Suman, Advocate Miss. Pragunee Kashyap, Advocate For the Resp-State: Mr. Aditya Kumar, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-I

---------

03/Dated: 16.03.2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This petition challenges adjudication order dated 30.12.2023 issued

under Section 73(9) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

3. In paragraph 30, the petitioner has made a statement that it has no

alternate or equally efficacious remedy other than to move before this

Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. This is because the impugned

order is ex parte.

4. We must say that this statement is completely misleading, and on

this ground itself, this petition deserves to be dismissed. As against the

impugned order, the petitioner has a remedy of appeal under Section 107

2026:JHHC:7193-DB

of the said Act. Therefore, it was a duty of the petitioner to disclose that

the order is appealable. After such a disclosure, the petitioner could have

always pleaded why, according to the petitioner, the practice of relegating

the petitioner to avail of an alternate remedy ought to be bypassed.

However, the petitioner was not justified in making a misleading

statement that no alternative or efficacious remedy was available in the

matter.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the

petitioner was not served with any show cause notice before the

impugned order dated 30.12.2023 was made. She also contended that no

notice granting the petitioner the opportunity of hearing under Section

75(4) of the JGST Act was issued to the petitioner before the impugned

order was made. She contended that service of a show cause notice or a

notice giving opportunity of hearing under Section 75(4), apart from being

a statutory requirement, is one of the facets of observance with the

principles of natural Justice and fair play. She submitted that in a case

where a violation of natural justice is established, the practice of

relegating the petitioner to avail of an alternate remedy is usually not

insisted upon.

6. In this case, the respondents have filed a counter-affidavit. In the

counter affidavit, there is a clear statement that a notice in form ASMT 10

under Rule 99 (1) of the JGST Rules 2017 vide Reference No. 3260

dated 08.09.2023 was served upon the petitioner through registered

e-mail address, giving the petitioner an opportunity to show cause and

explain the discrepancies in the returns filed by the petitioner. The

petitioner was also informed that if no explanation is received by the

aforesaid date, it would be presumed that the petitioner had nothing

2026:JHHC:7193-DB

further to say in the matter and the case would proceed in accordance

with law.

7. The counter also states that a detailed show cause notice in

DRC-01 under Section 73(1) of the said Act, vide Reference No. 3182,

dated 24.11.2023, was issued to the petitioner, and the same was

uploaded on the GSTN Portal and sent to the petitioner's e-mail. The

counter affidavit states that despite proper service of the show cause

notice, the petitioner did not bother to submit any written/oral explanation

or produce any supportive document. The counter also states that the

order under Section 73(9) and subsequently issued GST DRC-07 was

communicated to the petitioner to the GST Portal.

8. The petitioner, however, disputes everything and states that no

intimation or show cause notice was ever received by the petitioner. The

petitioner also states that it had no knowledge of the impugned order

dated 30.12.2023, and such knowledge was acquired only in the last

week of July 2025 upon receipt of a letter/reminder dated 24.07.2025.

9. Apart from the fact that the pleadings in the writ petition about the

non-service of notices are not very clear, we think that the issue of service

of notices is a seriously disputed question of fact. Such disputed

questions of fact cannot ordinarily be resolved by invoking this Court's

extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The

respondents, on oath, stated that the notices were served at the

registered e-mail addresses, and that the show cause notice and the

impugned order were uploaded on the GST portal. The petitioner simply

denies all this in a petition which is instituted on 11th October 2025.

10. Even if we assume that the statement in paragraph 12 that the

petitioner was shocked to receive a letter/reminder dated 24.07.2025,

based upon which the petitioner made applications to obtain a peace of

2026:JHHC:7193-DB

orders/order sheets, still, there is hardly any explanation for the delay in

instituting this writ petition.

11. Further, if it is indeed the petitioner's case that the petitioner was

unaware of the impugned order and came to know about the order much

later, then it will be open to the petitioner to appeal the said order from the

alleged date of obtaining knowledge and copies of the order. But again,

this is a seriously disputed question of fact which the petitioner will have

to establish. A mere statement about belated knowledge can never be

sufficient for extending the period of limitation.

12. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon Assistant

Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors. Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline

Consumer Health Care Limited, (2020) 19 SCC 681, to submit that the

High Courts should not allow the petitioner to bypass mechanisms

provided under the statute. He submitted that when a complete

mechanism is provided under the Act for challenging assessment orders,

that mechanism alone must be followed, and the writ petition is not

maintainable to defeat the statutory scheme.

13. There are several decisions that take the view that the alternative

remedy should not be easily bypassed on a disputed allegation of a

failure of natural justice. In this case, as noted earlier, the petitioner has

firstly made a misleading statement in this petition. In any event, the

allegations about failure of natural justice would involve adjudication into

seriously disputed questions of fact, which cannot normally be undertaken

under our summary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

14. Accordingly, we are satisfied that this is not a fit case to exercise

our discretion and allow the petitioner to bypass the statutory remedies

available. Entertaining such a petition would not be consistent with the

law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant

2026:JHHC:7193-DB

Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada (supra), as relied upon by Mr Aditya

Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.

15. For the above reasons, we dismiss this petition without any order

for costs. However, we grant the petitioner liberty to appeal the impugned

order in accordance with the law. All contentions of all parties in this

regard are left open to be decided by the appellate authority.

16. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, do not survive and are

disposed of.

17. No costs.

(M.S. Sonak, C.J.)

(Rajesh Shankar, J.) March 16, 2026

N.A.F.R. APK/VK

Uploaded on 18.03.2026