Writ Jurisdiction limited to exceptions; statutory appeal under Section 107 permitted instead, with limited pre-deposit relief.

The primary issue was whether writ relief under Article 226 may be granted to challenge assessment and show-cause proceedings alleging fraudulent input tax credit, or whether the statutory appellate route under Section 107 of the CGST Act is the sole remedy. The court applied the principle that Article 226 is available only in exceptional circumstances (fundamental-rights breach, excess of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, or vires challenge) and found none on the record; factual and evidentiary issues, interconnected transactions, and exchequer risk require appellate factfinding. Outcome: writ jurisdiction declined; petitioners relegated to statutory appeal with limited relief on pre-deposit/limitation to permit merits adjudication.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is maintainable in a petition challenging assessment, show cause notice and adjudication arising from alleged fraudulent availment of input tax credit, or whether the petitioners must be relegated to statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act.

Analysis: The petition involves allegations of complex and interconnected transactions and intelligence-led investigation indicating availment of input tax credit through non-existent or bogus firms. The impugned order is an appealable order under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. Prior decisions (including the Supreme Court and this Court) establish that a writ petition under Article 226 will be entertained only in exceptional circumstances such as breach of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or challenge to vires. The record shows no established exception: there was service of notice, a reply was filed, and the matters require detailed factual and evidentiary examination better suited to the appellate process. Considerations identified include the burden on the exchequer, the potential impact on the GST regime, the risk of multiplicity of litigation and contradictory findings, and the need for factual analysis of connected entities and transactions. The Court therefore grants the petitioner liberty to pursue the statutory appeal and affords limited relief on limitation/pre-deposit grounds to enable adjudication on merits by the appellate authority.

Conclusion: Writ jurisdiction is not exercisable in the present facts; the petition is dismissed and the petitioners are relegated to avail the statutory remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. The petitioners are permitted to file an appeal with the requisite pre-deposit by the date specified by the Court, in which event the appeal shall be adjudicated on merits and shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation.

---