Writ jurisdiction and alternate remedy under GST: court refused bypass of appeal against Section 74 notice and demand.

Writ jurisdiction was held inappropriate where the impugned demand and notice could be examined through the statutory appellate mechanism. The pre-assessment communication relied on by the appellant was treated as an intimation, while the later Form GST DRC-01 notice under Section 74 read with Rule 142(1)(a) satisfied the statutory requirements. Because the appellant had replied to that notice as a show cause notice, the challenge could not bypass the alternate remedy merely by recharacterising it later. In the absence of a plea and proof that the notice or demand was without competence or otherwise void, the appeal was dismissed and the appellant was left to pursue the statutory appeal with all contentions open.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant could invoke writ jurisdiction to challenge the demand order instead of pursuing the statutory appellate remedy, and whether the impugned pre-assessment communication qualified as a notice under Section 74.

Analysis: The communication relied on as the foundation for the challenge was found to be only an intimation, but the subsequent notice issued in Form GST DRC-01 under Section 74 and Rule 142(1)(a) of the GST Rules satisfied the statutory requirements. The appellant had also replied to that notice as a show cause notice and only later sought to characterise it differently. In these circumstances, the challenge did not justify bypassing the statutory mechanism, since the validity of the notice and the demand could be examined by the appellate authority in accordance with law. The writ remedy was therefore not the proper course, absent a plea and proof of lack of competence or voidness.

Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy with liberty to raise all contentions, including those relating to the notice and the demand order.

---