Efficacious statutory remedy bars writ jurisdiction; limited 30 day restraint and tolling of limitation permitted pending appeal.

Writ challenge to tax demand orders was held non-maintainable because an efficacious statutory appellate remedy exists; the availability of the appellate forum under the statute was decisive on maintainability. The court treated a procedural irregularity in issuance of a consolidated notice as not negating the appellate remedy. The petitioner was granted liberty to file the statutory appeal and to claim tolling under the Limitation Act; respondents were restrained from taking precipitative action for thirty days and the appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal uninfluenced by this order.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition challenging orders under Section 74(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Section 73(9) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is maintainable when an alternative remedy exists under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and whether interim restraint on precipitative action is warranted pending exercise of the appellate remedy and consideration of limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: The Court examined the availability of the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and held that the existence of that efficacious alternative remedy is decisive on maintainability of the writ petition. The Court noted factual irregularity in the issuance of a single notice covering alleged short payment for three financial years but considered that procedural irregularity did not negate the availability of the appellate forum. The Court observed the petitioner may approach the appropriate appellate authority and, if an appeal is filed, would be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Pending exercise of the appellate remedy, limited interim protection in the form of restraint on precipitative action for thirty days was directed, and the appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal without being influenced by observations in the present order.

Conclusion: Writ petition dismissed on grounds of availability of alternative statutory remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (decision against the petitioner and therefore in favour of Revenue). The petitioner is granted liberty to file the statutory appeal and is entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963; respondents are restrained from initiating precipitative action for thirty days and the appellate authority shall decide the appeal uninfluenced by this order.

---