1 (2026: JHHC:1508-DB) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (T) No. 2889 of 2019 Amit Agarwal, Proprietor of M/s Shree Balaji Enterprises, S/o Sri Rameshwar Lal Agarwal, aged about 32 years, who is a citizen of India, having its place of business at R.T. Road, Naya Bazar, P.O.- Jugsalai, P.S.- Jugsalai, Town- Jamshedpur, District- Singhbhum East (Jharkhand). …. Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, Secretary, through the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue, North Block, P.O.- Rastrapati Bhawan, P.S.- PPG Line, Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. 2. Joint Director General, Directorate General of GST Intelligence Unit, Jamshedpur. 3. The Addl. Director General, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Zonal Unit, Patna. 4. The Commissioner, GST & CX, Jamshedpur. …. Respondents ------ CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, Advocate For the Resp.-U.O.I. : Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, CGC Mr. Ayush, AC to ASGI Mr. Anurag Vijay, Advocate Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, Advocate For the Resp.-CGST : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate ----- 15/ 20.01.2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. After the matter was argued for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to respond to the impugned show cause notice. He submits that if any adverse orders are made in the show cause notice, the petitioner should be allowed to raise all contentions, including the contention that Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, is ultra vires the Central Excise Act, 1944, in future. He further prays that some reasonable time be granted to the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice. 2 3. The request made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents. Even otherwise, we think this request is reasonable because, normally, issues of ultra vires and constitutional validity are not to be decided by this Court merely because we can do so; such issues are to be decided only if we must. 4. Accordingly, we grant the petitioner four weeks’ time to respond to the impugned show cause notice. All contentions of all parties are left open, including the issue of whether Rule 26(2) is allegedly ultra vires the parent Act. Though such an issue cannot be raised before the Adjudicating Authority, if any adverse orders are made, disposing of the impugned show cause notice, then the right of the petitioner to question the validity of Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is left open. 5. If no response is filed within four weeks, the Adjudicating Authority is free to pass fresh orders without awaiting such response. The Adjudicating Authority, no doubt, would have to comply with the principles of natural justice and fair play and hear the petitioner, as is required under the law, before the show-cause notice is disposed of. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, as withdrawn, with the aforesaid liberty. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) January 20, 2026 Ranjeet / R.Kr. Uploaded on 27.01.2026