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 GST demand and the appellate order was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy, the petitioner's failure to pursue that remedy within limitation, and the alleged denial of hearing under section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Analysis: The petition was filed against an ex parte demand order under section 74 and the subsequent dismissal of the appeal by the first appellate authority. The petitioner failed to show that the notices and order were not served through the GST portal or that the adverse proceedings were unknown to him. The record also showed absence in the personal hearing before the appellate authority and no application for condonation of delay. The Court further relied on the statutory appellate mechanism, including the Board circular explaining the availability and timing of appeal to the Tribunal, and held that the writ jurisdiction should not be used to bypass the prescribed remedy or the mandatory pre-deposit requirement.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertainable and was dismissed, leaving the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy before the GST Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an effective statutory appellate remedy exists and the litigant has been negligent in availing it, the writ court will ordinarily decline interference, especially when the challenge is intended to bypass limitation and mandatory pre-deposit requirements.
TaxTMI 
