GST: High Court dismisses Tata Steel’s writ petition, ruling company must follow statutory "alternate remedy":

GST: High Court dismisses Tata Steel’s writ petition, ruling company must follow statutory "alternate remedy" Tata Steel Limited has moved the High Court to challenge a late 2025 tax order under Section 74 of the CGST Act, bypassing the standard appeal route due to alleged fundamental legal and procedural errors. The company argues that the tax authorities lacked jurisdiction because there was no evidence of fraud or "intent to evade," and further claims the order was based on a flawed audit and ignored key objections. In contrast, the Revenue Department maintains that the order was passed fairly and argues that Tata Steel should pursue a statutory appeal rather than seeking a writ, as the dispute involves factual assessments that fall under the purview of the Appellate Authority.

Also Read

Tata Steel Challenges Rs 1,755 Crore Demand Notice for excess coal extraction Before Revisional Authority

Central Issue: Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition against an Order in Original under Section 74 of the CGST Act despite the availability of an effective statutory appellate remedy, on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and violation of natural justice. HC's Decision: The High Court dismissed Tata Steel’s writ petition, ruling that the company must follow the statutory "alternate remedy" path rather than bypassing it for constitutional intervention. The Court determined that the tax department acted within its jurisdiction and that the dispute involved factual questions regarding input tax credit that are best handled by the Appellate Authority rather than a "fact finding" writ court. On the issue of natural justice, the Court found that adequate opportunity had been provided to the petitioner, including the issuance of show cause notice and consideration of its reply.

Also Read

Tata Steel Wins Relief of Over Rs 4,300 crore in Odisha Chromite Mine Case

The contention that certain arguments were not properly addressed was held insufficient to establish a patent breach of natural justice. Additionally, the judges found no violation of natural justice, as the company was given a fair opportunity to respond to the original notices. While the petition was dismissed, the court granted Tata Steel a four-week window to file a formal appeal, ensuring the case would be heard on its merits despite the delay. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below.