JUDGMENT : SANDEEP TANEJA, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner seeking following reliefs : “A. That the writ petition filed by the petitioner may very kindly be allowed and through this writ petition humble request of present petitioner to kindly direct the respondent DGGI agencies in order to release the seized material, documents, and other relevant materials, Tally Software/laptop, handover seized hard cash which was seized from cash counter of present petitioner, seized signed all the cheques, mobile phones, DVR and 1 TB hard disk and other relevant material seized in the name of investigation. B. The Panchnama (Annex.-3) created by the Department must be quashed and set aside as the Panchnama has been created without following the Section 67 of CGST Act and guidelines of the Panchnama and seizure operation as well as the seizure was suppose to be done by Joint Commissioner but is not followed in current case. C. That SCN notice (Annex.-4) as well as SCN order (Annex.-9) are supposed to be quashed and set aside because violation of Rule 26 under CGST Rules has been done by generating SCN order manually and issuing one SCN for multiple financial years is also totally contradictory to provisions of law. D. To direct respondent DGGI agencies in order to hear the present petitioner submissions made before the Commissionerate CGST and conclude the submissions expeditiously as per law and then generate SCN if applicable as per law. E. Any other appropriate writ order or direction which this Hon’ble Court is please to consider just and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case may kindly also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner, a private limited company, is engaged in the business of installing solar panels at residential and commercial buildings. Petitioner is also engaged in supplying of goods related to solar power generating system and solar power based devices. 2.1 Respondents carried out search and seizure proceedings at business premises of petitioner on 12 th April 2024 and 13 th April 2024. During said proceedings, certain material documents and other items were seized and panchnama was prepared on 13 th April 2024. 2.1 Respondents carried out search and seizure proceedings at business premises of petitioner on 12 th April 2024 and 13 th April 2024. During said proceedings, certain material documents and other items were seized and panchnama was prepared on 13 th April 2024. Being aggrieved by action of respondents, petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court bearing D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16877/2024 seeking issuance of a direction to release seized material and other relevant materials. 2.2 Respondents also issued a show cause notice dated 3 rd August 2024 to petitioner under Section 74 (1) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. During pendency of above-mentioned writ petition, petitioner filed a reply to show cause notice on 11 th October 2024. 2.3 This Hon’ble Court by order dated 12 th November 2024 dismissed the said writ petition with a direction to appellate authority namely the Commissioner, CGST to decide the appeal within a time-limit of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of order. 2.4 Subsequent thereto, petitioner was called for personal hearing on 10 th December 2024. On the said date, petitioner was represented by Mr. Mohit Golechha, C.A. and Mr. Ankit Majumdar, Advocate before the adjudicating authority and submitted additional submissions. Thereafter, adjudicating authority passed order in original dated 31 st December 2024, which is impugned in present petition. 2.5 It is submitted that on 2 nd January 2025 when petitioner approached respondents with set of documents, it came to his knowledge that adjudicating authority had already passed impugned order. Having come to know of impugned order, petitioner addressed a letter dated 21 st January 2025 to the Additional Commissioner requesting for reconsideration and review of order. The said representation was considered and by letter dated 18 th February 2025 issued by Additional Commissioner, it was communicated that the order in original was passed correctly and no action is pending before adjudicating authority. It appears that subsequently also petitioner addressed a letter/ email to respondents on 10 th March 2025 which came to be rejected by letter dated 18 th March 2025 issued by the Additional Commissioner. 3. It appears that subsequently also petitioner addressed a letter/ email to respondents on 10 th March 2025 which came to be rejected by letter dated 18 th March 2025 issued by the Additional Commissioner. 3. Counsel for petitioner has submitted that on 10 th December 2024, petitioner sought four weeks’ time to file additional documents which were running into 8000 to 10000 pages and the said request of petitioner was verbally accepted by adjudicating authority. Despite granting time, the adjudicating authority, even before the period of four weeks got over and petitioner could submit additional documents, passed impugned order without affording proper opportunity of hearing. 4. Per contra, counsel for respondents has submitted that petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Act,2017 and hence writ is not maintainable. It is further submitted that opportunity of personal hearing was given to petitioner who appeared through its representatives on 10 th December 2024 and also submitted additional submissions in addition to the reply to show cause notice which was filed earlier. It is also submitted that on 10 th December 2024 representatives of petitioner sought two weeks’ time to file additional documents, however, within the said period of two weeks, no further documents were submitted by petitioner, hence adjudicating authority proceeded to pass impugned order. It is further stated that petitioner submitted the additional documents on 2 nd January 2025, after passing of the impugned order dated 31 st December 2024. 5. The grievance of petitioner is that opportunity of hearing was not given and further that though petitioner was granted time of four weeks to file additional documents on 10 th December 2024, however even before said period got over, adjudicating authority passed impugned order. Hence, impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 6. We find that in Paragraph 9 of petition, it is averred that department asked petitioner to submit additional documents and therefore, petitioner sought four weeks’ time to comply with said directions. Hence, impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 6. We find that in Paragraph 9 of petition, it is averred that department asked petitioner to submit additional documents and therefore, petitioner sought four weeks’ time to comply with said directions. Relevant portion of Paragraph 9 is reproduced as under : “The present petitioner was not given a chance for person hearing even after orders passed by Hon'ble High Court on dated 12-11- 2024 subsequently on dated 10-12-2024 present petitioner was asked to appear before the respondent agencies, the present petitioner as per the directions reached before the competent authorities on dated 10-12-2024, but the complete hearing was not conducted on dated 10-12-2024 as the respondent department asked for certain more documents from present petitioner in order to valuate the discrepancies observed by the respondent department, the present petitioner was ready to provide the documents asked for but requested four weeks time in order to comply with the directions given by the respondents department on dated 10-12-2024. The present petitioner collected all the documents and approached respondent DGGI official on dated 02- 01-2025 with set of requested documents, but the respondent agencies totally ignored to accept the set of documents and also communicated to the present petitioner who was not aware about the fact that respondent DGGI department has already passed a speaking order on dated 31-12-2024……” (Emphasis Supplied) We are unable to accept the submission of petitioner as petitioner has failed to produce any document to show that any such direction was issued by respondents on 10 th December 2024. 7. Moreover in Paragraph 3 of additional affidavit filed by petitioner, it is mentioned that Mr. Mohit Golechha, C.A. and Mr. Ankit Majumdar, Advocate represented petitioner on 10 th December 2024 before adjudicating authority. They are the best persons to affirm about proceedings which took place on 10 th December 2024. However, their affidavits have not been placed in support of contention that department had requested petitioner to furnish further documents and verbally granted four weeks’ time to furnish the same. 8. In Paragraph 3 of additional affidavit, it is further averred that concerned official of respondents verbally requested the representatives of petitioner to furnish more documents. However, their affidavits have not been placed in support of contention that department had requested petitioner to furnish further documents and verbally granted four weeks’ time to furnish the same. 8. In Paragraph 3 of additional affidavit, it is further averred that concerned official of respondents verbally requested the representatives of petitioner to furnish more documents. Petitioner’s representatives then verbally sought four weeks’ time to furnish more documents and verbally both concerned authority as well as representatives of petitioner mutually agreed for second round of personal hearing after four weeks. 9. We fail to understand that why would department require the petitioner to file additional documents. It was for petitioner to submit documents to substantiate its case before adjudicating authority, more particularly when petitioner had already filed reply to the show cause notice and also additional submissions in addition to the reply. Hence, we are convinced with contention of respondents that on 10 th December 2024, petitioner sought two weeks’ time to file additional documents. 10. We further observe that after having knowledge of impugned order, first letter written by petitioner to respondents is letter dated 21 st January 2025. In said letter, it is nowhere mentioned that adjudicating authority had granted four weeks’ time to petitioner to file additional documents. There is no reference of proceedings dated 10 th December 2024. If petitioner had been granted four weeks’ time to file additional documents, there would have been reference of proceedings dated 10 th December 2024 in said letter. 11. Petitioner has also relied upon order dated 12 th November 2024 to show that Court had directed respondents to pass order within 30 days. In fact, for alleged non-compliance of said order, petitioner filed a contempt petition bearing D.B. Writ Contempt No.272/2025 which was dismissed on 3 rd March 2025. On one hand, petitioner relies upon the said order and on the other hand, petitioner contends that it sought four weeks’ time on 10 th December, 2024, which itself would have flouted the above mentioned time line of 30 days. 12. A bare perusal of impugned order reveals that opportunity of hearing was given to petitioner on 10 th December 2024 and reply and additional submissions made by petitioner were also duly considered before passing the said order. 13. In view of above, we are of considered opinion that petition is grossly misconceived and wholly devoid of merits. 12. A bare perusal of impugned order reveals that opportunity of hearing was given to petitioner on 10 th December 2024 and reply and additional submissions made by petitioner were also duly considered before passing the said order. 13. In view of above, we are of considered opinion that petition is grossly misconceived and wholly devoid of merits. Contention of petitioner that it was granted four weeks’ time to file documents on 10 th December 2024 is grossly misleading and appears to be an attempt to cause delay or stall recovery of amount. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and Others Vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal , (2014) 1 SCC 603 held that in view of availability of alternative statutory remedy, writ will not be maintainable. Further, this case does not fall in any of the parameters laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others , (1998) 8 SCC 1 where alternative remedy would not operate as a bar in maintaining writ petition. 15. We are thus not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of our discretionary extraordinary jurisdiction. 16. Petitioner may avail remedy of appeal, if so advised, against impugned order in accordance with law. The time commencing from filing of this petition, i.e., 20 th March 2025 till disposal shall be excluded in calculating limitation for filing the appeal. 17. We make it clear that we have not made any comment on merits of the matter. 18. With above observations, petition dismissed. 19. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.