The Supreme Court, in Fanmade11 Fantasy Sports Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., considered writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging GST show cause notices issued to fantasy sports operators. The petitions also questioned the legality of certain GST provisions and sought interim protection against adjudication proceedings.
The Court noted that the controversy stood substantially covered by its recent judgment in Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (HQS) & Ors. v. Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited & Ors. Consequently, it declined to examine the merits of the petitions and directed the petitioners to pursue the statutory remedies available under the GST law.
The decision reiterates the settled principle that where an adjudication process has culminated in an assessment order, or where the statutory framework provides an effective appellate mechanism, constitutional writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not invoked. In one of the connected matters, the Court observed that a final assessment order had already been passed determining tax liability and granted the petitioner four weeks’ time to file a statutory appeal while permitting all legal contentions, including issues relating to valuation and pre-deposit, to be raised before the appellate authority.
This ruling reinforces the importance of the statutory appellate hierarchy under the GST regime. Taxpayers seeking to challenge assessment proceedings or show cause notices should ordinarily exhaust the remedies available under the CGST Act unless exceptional circumstances justify direct constitutional intervention.
Why Read This Judgment?
This decision is significant for advocates, Chartered Accountants, GST practitioners, businesses, and tax professionals dealing with GST litigation. It clarifies the Supreme Court’s approach towards challenges to GST show cause notices and emphasizes the primacy of statutory appeals over direct writ petitions, particularly after the Court’s ruling in the Gameskraft litigation.