Writ jurisdiction and GST appeal remedy: disputed facts and vires challenge were left for the appellate forum.

An efficacious statutory appeal under the GST Act ordinarily bars writ interference, and exceptions such as breach of natural justice or vires challenge require a clear and suitable factual basis. Here, the alleged denial of personal hearing turned on disputed facts, which were not fit for writ adjudication. The challenge to Section 16(2)(c) also involved a composite assessment with Section 16(2)(b) and factual scrutiny better left to the appellate forum. Issues concerning input tax credit, burden of proof, and documentary compliance were similarly held to be matters for appeal. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition could be entertained despite the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy under the GST Act in view of the alleged violation of natural justice and the challenge to the vires of Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition could be entertained despite the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy under the GST Act in view of the alleged violation of natural justice and the challenge to the vires of Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The availability of an appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ordinarily bars writ interference, save in exceptional situations such as breach of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or a challenge to the vires of a statute or delegated legislation. On the alleged denial of hearing, the record disclosed a factual dispute as to whether notice of personal hearing had in fact been served, and such disputed questions of fact were not appropriate for adjudication in writ proceedings. As regards the vires challenge, the impugned adjudication rested on a composite invocation of Section 16(2)(b) and Section 16(2)(c), and the Court held that the controversy involved factual examination better suited to the appellate forum. The remaining contentions concerning the merits of input tax credit, burden of proof, and documentary compliance were also held to be matters for appeal.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in the face of the statutory appeal remedy, and the petitioner was relegated to the appellate remedy.

Final Conclusion: The impugned tax demand order was not interfered with in writ jurisdiction, and the petitioner was left to pursue the statutory appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction should not be invoked where an efficacious statutory appeal exists, unless a clear exceptional ground is made out; disputed factual issues and matters requiring factual scrutiny should be left to the appellate authority.

---