Allahabad High Court
M/S PIT ZONE THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR ANUBHAV JAINversusSUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL GST
- Decided
Holding
The composite notice is valid and the writ petition is dismissed because the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Summary
M/S Pit Zone, represented by Anubhav Jain, challenged an adjudication order dated 03.03.2026 issued by the Superintendent, Central GST, for the tax periods 2019‑2020 to 2021‑2022. The petition raised two grounds: that the composite notice covering three financial years was jurisdictionally invalid, and that the adjudicating authority relied solely on a CAG audit without an independent satisfaction. The revenue argued that a coordinate bench had upheld the validity of composite notices in M/S SA Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2026) and that the petitioner had been given a hearing. The High Court held that the composite notice is valid per the earlier decision and that the matter involves factual disputes best resolved through the statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, leaving the petitioner free to pursue the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether a composite notice issued for multiple financial years is jurisdictionally valid under the CGST law.
- Whether an adjudicating authority can base an order solely on information from a CAG audit without recording an independent satisfaction.
- Whether the availability of a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act bars the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- composite notice
- CGST
- adjudication order
- statutory appeal
- writ jurisdiction
- CAG audit
- tax period
- jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT TAX No. - 2421 of 2026
M/S Pit Zone Through Its Proprietor Anubhav Jain
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Superintendent, Central Gst
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Adarsh Srivastava, Reena Pal
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Dhananjay Awasthi
Court No. - 3
HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.
1. Heard Shri Adarsh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri
Arimardan Singh Rajpoot, learned counsel for the revenue.
2. Challenge has been raised to the Adjudication Order dated 03.03.2026
passed by Superintendent, CGST, Ghaziabad for tax period 2019-2020 to
2021-2022.
3. Two grounds have been pressed. First, it has been submitted that the
impugned order has been passed arising from a composite notice issued by
the adjudicating authority dated 29.09.2025 for the Financial Year 2019-
2020, 2020-2021 and 2021-2022.
4. Submission is, such composite notice is impermissible in law. It is without
jurisdiction.
5. Second, the impugned order has been passed solely on the strength of
audit conducted by the CAG. No independent satisfaction may have been
recorded by the adjudicating authority.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue would contend, the
issue of composite notice has been decided against the assessee and in
favour of the revenue by a coordinate bench in M/S SA Aromatics Pvt.
Ltd. and another Vs. Union of India and 5 others, 2026:AHC:14559-DB.
7. On the second issue, it has been submitted, fact dispute exists. While the
WTAX No. 2421 of 2026
2
proceedings may have been initiated on the satisfaction recorded on the
strength of information received from the CAG, impugned order has been
passed after affording due opportunity of hearing.
8. Thus, preliminary objection has been raised that petitioner has statutory
remedy of appeal available to him under section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the
record, on the first issue described as jurisdictional issue, in M/S SA
Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. (supra), challenge raised to composite notice has been
repelled. Such notice has been found to be valid. In view of that decision
with which we are in agreement, there exists no scope to offer interference
on that issue.
10. On the second issue, preliminary objection is sustained. Clearly fact
disputes are involved as may require detailed consideration to be offered on
facts. In face of statutory remedy of appeal available, we recognize the
principle that in tax matters, writ jurisdiction may not be easily or readily
invoked as may bye-pass the statutory remedy of appeal.
11. To the extent, such remedy of appeal is equally efficacious, interference
claimed in the present writ petition is declined.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the
petitioner to avail statutory remedy in accordance with law. It is made clear,
the said appeal, if preferred may dealt with on its own merit without being
prejudiced by any observation made in this order.
May 6, 2026
Bhanu
(Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…