[2025:RJ-JP:4277-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10722/2023 M/s Kaushal Pharma, Through Its Proprietor Mr. Mahesh Kumar Gupta S/o Rurmal Gupta Age 58 Years (Approx) R/o 187 Lane No 4 Padmawati Colony- A Nirman Nagar Jaipur 302019. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Chief Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department Jaipur 2. Joint Commissioner, Business Audit I Zone Iv Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jatin Harjai Mr. Rohan Aggarwal with Ms. Yashvini Chechani For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Taneja, AAG with Mr. Aditya Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order 30/01/2025 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J(ORAL): 1. The challenge in the petition is to quash the show cause notice (for brevity, ’SCN’) dated 29.05.2023 inter alia on the ground that the Audit Officer cannot be an Assessing Officer. Further challenge to the clarification dated 18.10.2022 and communication dated 13.10.2022. 2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at some length, it revealed that the preliminary objections raised by the petitioner with regard to jurisdiction of the authority issuing SCN have been decided vide order dated 06.07.2023. The adjudication of the preliminary objection is an order passed by adjudicating authority [2025:RJ-JP:4277-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-10722/2023] and the petitioner has a remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that during pendency of the petition, interim protection was operating in favour of the petitioner. 4. This petition is disposed of relegating the petitioner to remedy of appeal. 5. It is clarified that at this stage, the petitioner has been relegated to the remedy of appeal, the issue of challenge to the communication dated 13.10.2022 and clarification dated 18.10.2022 is kept open. 6. In the eventuality of the petitioner filing an appeal accompanied by a stay application before the appellate authority within four weeks from today, the same shall be considered to be within limitation. The interim protection shall continue till the appellate authority takes up the stay application. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J MONIKA-LAKSHYA/26