Fact of the Case:  The petitioner, M/s Digambar Road Lines, challenged the final judgment and order dated 11.11.2025 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in WPC No. 30271/2025. The dispute arose against the Commissioner (Appeals), GST, Central Excise and Customs and other authorities in relation to GST proceedings. Being dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the SLP, which was allowed by the Supreme Court. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court, where arguments were advanced by the petitioner’s counsel seeking interference with the High Court’s order. The litigation reached the Supreme Court primarily on the issue of whether the impugned High Court judgment required interference in exercise of special leave jurisdiction.

Held by court : The Supreme Court first condoned the delay in filing the Special Leave Petition and proceeded to hear the matter on merits. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Court examined the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Orissa.

The Court clearly recorded that it was not inclined to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the High Court. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed and all accompanying interlocutory applications, if any, also stood disposed of. This indicates judicial restraint by the Supreme Court in exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 where no substantial ground for interference was found.

Fact of the Case:  The petitioner, M/s Power Line Air Express, approached the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition against the final judgment and order dated 16.03.2026 passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 3328/2026. The dispute arose under the GST law involving proceedings initiated by the Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and other authorities against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the High Court’s refusal to grant relief in writ jurisdiction.

The main issue before the Court was whether the petitioner could bypass the statutory appellate mechanism and directly seek relief through writ proceedings. The petitioner sought interference by the Supreme Court against the High Court order. Since the matter involved availability of a statutory appeal before the Tribunal, the Court examined whether such alternate remedy should be exhausted first and whether delay in approaching the Tribunal should prejudice the petitioner

Held by court : The Supreme Court held that it was not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Delhi High Court. The Court reaffirmed the principle that where a statutory remedy of appeal is available, such remedy should ordinarily be pursued instead of invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction or seeking direct intervention before the Supreme Court.

However, considering the circumstances of the case, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to exercise its statutory remedy before the Tribunal. It further clarified that if such appeal is filed, it may be permitted without reference to delay in approaching the Tribunal. The Court specifically stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and disposed of the Special Leave Petition accordingly.

Fact of the Case:  The petitioner challenged a show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on the basis of audit objections raised by the CAG alleging excess availment of ITC and short payment of tax. The notice referred to various discrepancies and annexures but failed to clearly set out the exact basis of the demand, computation methodology, and specific allegations. The petitioner contended that the notice was vague, non-speaking, and did not provide adequate details to enable an effective reply, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

Held by court : A show cause notice must clearly specify the allegations, basis of demand, and supporting material so that the assessee can respond effectively. A vague and non-reasoned notice, especially one issued mechanically on the basis of audit objections without independent application of mind, is unsustainable in law. Since the impugned notice lacked clarity and failed to disclose proper particulars, it was held to be in violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the Court quashed the show cause notice while granting liberty to the department to issue a fresh notice in accordance with law.