[2026:RJ-JP:25941-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6752/2026 URN: CW / 14820U / 2026 Mahindra And Mahindra Limited, A Public Company Having Its Rajasthan Office At Dta 004-009, 10 And 004-011, Bhartiya Skill Development University, Mahindra World City, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302 037 Through General Manager (Gst Compliance) And Authorized Signatory Omprakash Sharma. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi-110001. 2. The Additional Commissioner, Cgst And Central Excise, Jaipur Commissionerate, Having Its Office At N.c.r. Building, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur-302005. 3. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Finance Secretary (Revenue), Government Secretariat, Jaipur- 302005. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohit Gupta Mr. Arun Jain, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Shukla Mr. Khem Chand Sharma Mr. Shivam Sharma Ms. Jyoti Sharma Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG with Mr. Chelsi Agarwal, Advocates HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 10/07/2026 1. The writ petition inter alia is directed against an order in original dated 29.12.2025, whereby GST demand of Rs.2,14,84,454.25/- has been raised against the petitioner-company. The petition has been filed without availing the statutory remedy of appeal. [2026:RJ-JP:25941-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-6752/2026] 2. At the threshold, learned counsel appearing for respondents, on an advance service, objects to the maintainability of the writ petition, particularly, in light of the view taken by this Court at Jodhpur Bench in Punj Lloyd Ltd.- Varaha Infra Ltd. (JV) vs. Union of India in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10695/2026 decided on 25.05.2026 wherein it has been observed as under:- 7. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Trillion Lead Factory Private Limited (supra) has also observed that a writ petition shall not lie against issuance of show cause notice. The relevant paragraphs are quoted hereunder:- “It is trite law that no writ lies against an issuance of show cause notice and such writ petition would not be maintainable. This position has been explained to by this Court in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Ors. Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, (2012) 11 SCC 565 and in the judgment of Commr. of Central Excise Commissionerate Vs. M/s Krishna Was (P) Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.8609/2019 disposed of on 14.11.2019 vide Paragraph-2." 8. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court also in the case of Tanushree Logistics Private Ltd. (supra) has observed as under:- “The law declared in the aforesaid decisions, particularly in cases where challenge arises out of an order of assessment in the matter of imposition of tax, leaves no manner of doubt that except in limited circumstances as dealt with hereinabove, the writ petitions would not be maintainable. In view of above, we are not inclined to entertain these writ petitions and to go into correctness of the order of assessment and leave this to be dealt with by the appellate authority in the event the writ petitioner choses to avail his right of appeal as provided under Section 107 of the Act. In the result, the objection of maintainability of the writ petitions is sustained and the writ petitions are held to be not maintainable, as the petitioner has an efficacious alternative statutory remedy of filing of an appeal. All these writ petitions are accordingly dismissed, leaving it open for the petitioner to avail alternative remedy of appeal. We further direct that the period during which these petitions remained pending before this court shall not be counted for the purposes of counting the period of limitation in filing appeal.” 9. In the instant case, the show cause notice dated 12.03.2025 was duly served upon the petitioner. Undisputedly, the petitioner did not lay any challenge to the show cause notice at the initial stage and rather chose to participate in the adjudication process and raised all the objections therein. The adjudicating authority, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed a speaking and reasoned Order-in-Original dated 27.03.2026, therefore, in our opinion, there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, in view of the above and as also in light of the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments of Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (supra), M/s Super Service Point Vs. Union of India & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.38643/2025, decided on 07.01.2026 and M/s Trillion Lead Factory Private Limited (supra), as well as the observation made by this Court in the case of Tanushree Logistics Private Ltd. (supra), since the petitioner is now having efficacious alternative remedy of statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Act of 2017, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. The petitioner may avail the remedy of appeal, if so advised, to challenge the Order-in-Original dated 27.03.2026. 10. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed. [2026:RJ-JP:25941-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-6752/2026] 3. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jodhpur. We thus see no reason as why the instant writ petition should be also not disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy provided under Section 107 of the CGST Act and raise all the issues and contentions urged herein before the Appellate Authority, which are left open to be decided by the said Authority. 4. With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of. 5. In case the petitioner files the appeal as above within a period of four weeks from today, the time taken before this Court in pursuing the instant writ petition shall be excluded while counting the period of limitation. 6. All pending application(s) also stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (ARUN MONGA),J DEEPA/2