TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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 an order imposing service tax and penalties is maintainable when a statutory appeal remedy under the GST framework (requiring pre-deposit) is available.
Analysis: The Court examined whether the existence of a statutory appeal under the GST regime, even where a pre-deposit is required under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, renders the writ remedy inefficacious. The Court relied on the principle that where an efficacious alternative statutory remedy exists, extraordinary writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be invoked. The Court referred to the Supreme Court precedent (Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. v. Commercial Steel Limited) which held that the remedy of appeal under the GST provisions is an efficacious statutory remedy and listed the narrow exceptions to entertaining writ challenges to appealable orders. The Court found that none of those exceptions were present and that the Single Bench correctly held that the statutory appeal remedy was available and the writ petition was not maintainable.
Conclusion: The writ petition is not maintainable and the appeal against the Single Bench order is dismissed; decision is in favour of the Respondent.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
