TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the assessment order under the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was liable to be entertained despite the availability of an alternative appellate remedy, and whether the alleged defects in service of notice and issuance of pre-notice intimation disclosed a jurisdictional error warranting interference.
Analysis: The impugned order was passed after service of soft copies of the show cause notice. The grievance was limited to non-service of the hard copy and to alleged deficiencies in the notice, including non-issue of the pre-notice intimation under Rule 142(1A) of the U.P. GST Rules, 2017 and absence of relied upon documents. These objections were treated as matters amounting, at best, to procedural irregularities. They did not establish any inherent lack of jurisdiction. In view of the statutory appellate remedy, the writ jurisdiction was not invoked.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and interference was declined because an adequate alternative remedy of appeal was available.
Final Conclusion: The petitioner was left to pursue the statutory appeal, and the challenge to the impugned order was not examined on merits in writ jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious alternative appellate remedy exists, alleged defects in service or procedural compliance that do not go to inherent jurisdiction do not ordinarily justify writ interference.
TaxTMI 
