[2026:RJ-JP:25187-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4011/2026 URN: CW / 9092U / 2026 Gvk Jaipur Expressway Pvt. Ltd., Toll Plaza At 286, Village Thikariya, Ajmer Road (Nh-8) Jaipur 303007 (Gstin 08Aabcg5541J1Zk) Through Its Chief Financial Officer Shri Ravi Kumar Dharba, S/o Shri Subramanyam Gopalaiah, R/o Sri Nilayam, Street No.8, Opp. Lane To Park No.2, Gandhi Nagar, Secunderabad-500080 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax, Circle-F, Zone-Iii, Kar Bhawan, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jaipur 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Commissioner Of State Tax, Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur 3. Union Of India Through The Chairman, Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs, North Block, New Delhi ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Javed Khan, Ms. Nishita Gambhir for Mr. Siddharth Ranka For Respondent(s) : Ms. Chelsi Agarwal, Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rathore for Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA Order 06/07/2026 Per: Sandeep Taneja, J. 1. The present writ petition is directed against the order- in- Original dated 29.01.2024 passed by the respondent No.1 in Form No. GST DRC-07, whereby the demand of Tax amounting to Rs.1,88,30,530/- for the financial year 2017-18 has been raised. By the said order, interest amounting Rs.2,14,60,613/- as well as penalty of Rs.1,88,30,530/- has [2026:RJ-JP:25187-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-4011/2026] also been imposed. The petitioner has also challenged the letter dated 19.12.2025 issued by the respondent department to the petitioner’s Bank in Form No. GST DRC-13 creating lien on the bank account of the petitioner. 2. At the outset it is relevant to mention here that in the similar circumstances, in the case of petitioner itself for the Financial Year 2018-19, a coordinate Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3636/2026 (GVK Jaipur Expressway Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax) decided on 18.03.2026, dismissed the writ petition wherein also without availing the alternative remedy of appeal, challenge was laid to an order-in-Original. 3. Aside above, learned counsel for the respondent raises objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition stating that the petitioner had an alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act to challenge the impugned order dated 29.01.2024. Learned counsel further submits that since the petitioner has failed to avail the aforesaid remedy, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not aware of the impugned order as the same was not communicated to the petitioner and was only uploaded on common GST portal. 5. We find that the impugned order was passed on 29.01.2024, against which the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act. Admittedly, the petitioner did not avail the said remedy within the statutory period of three months and has directly approached this Court by way of the present writ petition which has been filed in the month of February, 2026 i.e. almost 21 months after the expiry period for filing the appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act. [2026:RJ-JP:25187-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-4011/2026] 6. The reason given by the petitioner is that the petitioner-company had wound up business activity from Rajasthan on 10th April, 2023 and therefore, the petitioner was not supposed to visit the GST portal regularly and as such, uploading of the impugned order on the GST portal was not a proper communication. 7. We are not convinced with the said submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Alleged winding up of its business from the State of Rajasthan cannot be a ground for the petitioner to say that it was not supposed to visit the GST portal when the petitioner continues to be registered with the respondent department and hold valid GST number. Apparently the petitioner has been negligent by not taking the appropriate remedy against the impugned order and now as an after thought has taken an excuse that it was not supposed to visit the GST portal. 8. From the impugned order, it also transpires that the petitioner was issued a show cause notice in Form No. DRC-07, however the petitioner neither filed any reply nor sought any extension. Moreover, opportunity of physical hearing was given to the petitioner, however on the said date, no one appeared on its behalf. We are thereof the view that there is no violation of principle of natural justice. 9. As an upshot, in view of similar writ petition for F.Y. 2018-19 having already been dismissed, as well as the petitioner having failed to avail the efficacious alternative statutory remedy provided under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act and has filed the writ petition after 21 months from the expiry of the limitation period prescribed for filing the appeal without any cogent reason, we are not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition. [2026:RJ-JP:25187-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-4011/2026] 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also made some submissions on the merits of the matter, however, in light of the above discussion, we are not inclined to deal with the same. 11. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 12. All pending applications also stand disposed of. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J (ARUN MONGA),J 51/TN