The Delhi High Court addressed a case involving M/s Technosys Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd., which challenged a significant GST demand following an audit covering the financial years 2017–18 to 2021–22. The company had initially paid ₹49.5 lakh via DRC-03 but was later issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) demanding over ₹18.67 crore due to alleged incorrect tax classification and an additional ₹1.3 crore liability. The department confirmed the entire demand with a 200% penalty through an Order-in-Original, prompting the petitioner to seek relief from the High Court through a writ petition.

The petitioner contested the consolidation of multiple financial years into one SCN and argued that the issue was solely about tax classification, not fraud. The primary issue was whether a writ petition is maintainable against a GST demand when an alternative appellate remedy exists and whether multiple years can be consolidated in a single SCN.

Read More: Gujarat High Court : omission of Rule 96(10) applies to all pending proceedings and not just only future cases; Petitioner entitled to refund [Order attached]

The Court determined that it would not consider the merits of the case since an effective alternative remedy, such as an appeal under GST law, was available. It clarified that issues of tax classification and rates should be resolved by the appellate authority, rather than through writ jurisdiction. Citing the precedent set by Ambika Traders, the Court noted that GST law allows for the consolidation of multiple financial years in a single SCN. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition but allowed the petitioner to pursue statutory remedies, leaving all issues open for consideration.