The Delhi High Court declined to entertain a writ petition against a ₹4,49,93,111 demand under Section 74, holding that the disputed email service of hearing notices raises factual questions for the Section 107 appellate authority.

A taxpayer’s claim that hearing notices went to the wrong email address does not, by itself, take the case outside the alternative remedy rule when the department disputes it, and the question is best examined by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act [Rajkalpana Travels Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North Commissionerate, 2026-juristway.com-3195-HC(Delhi)-GST].

The petition was heard by a Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Bharat Parashar.

An audit for FY 2019-20 to 2023-24 under Section 65 led to an audit memo, a final audit report in Form ADT‑02 dated 19 Sep 2025, an intimation in DRC‑01A, and a show cause notice (SCN) dated 29 Sep 2025 under Section 74. The order dated 16 Mar 2026 confirmed a demand of ₹4,49,93,111 with interest and an equal penalty.

The order recorded hearings fixed for 3, 11 and 19 Feb 2026. The petitioner said it received no notice of them because they were emailed to an address different from the one in its registration. It argued that service under Section 169 was not established and that links for virtual hearings were never shared, in breach of Section 75(4).

The department replied that notices were emailed on 2, 5 and 16 Feb 2026 to the address in its records, none bounced back, and the petitioner filed no reply to the SCN.

The Court reiterated, citing Assistant Commissioner of State Tax v. Commercial Steel Limited ((2022) 16 SCC 447), that a breach of natural justice is a recognised exception to the alternative remedy rule. It added that “The mere invocation of the principles of natural justice would not, by itself, dispense with the requirement of ordinarily availing the statutory remedy.”

Here, the parties had taken competing positions. The issue was not merely whether emails were dispatched, but whether the notices were communicated as the statute requires to the email address attributable to the petitioner at the time. That called for examining the registration particulars and contemporaneous communications, which the appellate authority could do.

The Court also declined to examine the merits of the Section 74 demand or the petitioner’s complaint that its replies to the audit memo were not considered.

The petitioner was relegated to the appellate remedy under Section 107, with all contentions left open. If it applies under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to exclude the time spent in the writ petition, the appellate authority is to consider that application in accordance with law.

2026-juristway.com-3195-HC(Delhi)-GST