Writ interference in GST disputes is limited where factual questions and statutory appeal remedies remain available.

A challenge to Circular No. 9 of 2019 failed because the circular was treated as operating within the proper officer framework and not requiring the kind of separate notification urged under the CGST Act; the claim of bias also failed, as later adjudication by the inspecting authority did not by itself establish disqualification or breach of natural justice. A writ challenge to assessment orders denying input tax credit also failed because the dispute depended on the genuineness of transactions and supporting documents, which raised disputed questions of fact better addressed in statutory appeal rather than Article 226 review.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Circular No. 9 of 2019 authorising adjudication by the inspecting authority was invalid for want of notification and on the ground of bias; and (ii) whether the assessment orders denying input tax credit could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether Circular No. 9 of 2019 authorising adjudication by the inspecting authority was invalid for want of notification and on the ground of bias.

Analysis: The challenge based on absence of a notification was rejected on the footing that the circular operated in the context of the proper officer framework and did not require delegation in the manner contemplated by Section 167 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The objection based on bias was also rejected, as the mere fact that the inspecting authority later undertook adjudication did not, by itself, establish disqualification or violation of natural justice.

Conclusion: The challenge to the circular failed and was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment orders denying input tax credit could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the genuineness of transactions and the sufficiency of documents, both of which involved disputed questions of fact. The availability of an appellate remedy and the settled limitation on writ interference in fact-intensive tax matters weighed against entertaining the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The assessment orders were not interfered with and the writ challenge to them failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions challenging both the circular and the assessment orders were rejected, with liberty reserved to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court will not ordinarily interfere in tax adjudication involving disputed questions of fact where an effective statutory appeal is available, and authorisation of adjudication by a properly empowered authority is not invalid merely because the inspecting authority later acts as adjudicator absent demonstrated bias.

---