Alternative statutory remedy and lack of prejudice defeat writ interference against adjudication and notice challenges.

Writ interference was treated as inappropriate where an adjudication order had been passed after considering the reply and an efficacious statutory appeal was available. The challenge based on non-supply of documents was rejected because the taxpayer had not requested those documents in response to the notices and had replied on the material available. A discrepancy between the hearing date stated in the notice and the date of the order was held insufficient to invalidate the order because no prejudice was shown. The discussion emphasises restraint in writ jurisdiction, the primacy of alternative appellate remedies, and the need to demonstrate prejudice when procedural objections are raised.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable against the adjudication order when a statutory appeal was available. (ii) Whether the impugned notice was liable to be set aside for non-supply of documents. (iii) Whether the discrepancy between the hearing date mentioned in the notice and the date of the order vitiated the impugned order.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable against the adjudication order when a statutory appeal was available.

Analysis: The demand had been adjudicated after consideration of the petitioner's reply and a part of the petitioner's plea had already been accepted. In such circumstances, the availability of the statutory appeal weighed against interference in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in view of the alternative statutory remedy, and interference was declined.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned notice was liable to be set aside for non-supply of documents.

Analysis: The petitioner had not sought supply of the documents either in response to the discrepancy notice or in response to the notice under Section 73(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and had filed replies on the material available. The objection to non-supply was therefore not accepted.

Conclusion: The challenge based on non-supply of documents failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the discrepancy between the hearing date mentioned in the notice and the date of the order vitiated the impugned order.

Analysis: No prejudice was shown to have been caused by the difference between the date fixed for hearing and the date on which the order was passed.

Conclusion: The discrepancy in dates did not vitiate the impugned order.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and left the petitioner to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessment order has been passed after consideration of the reply and an efficacious statutory appeal is available, writ interference is unwarranted absent demonstrated prejudice or a timely demand for the documents relied upon.

---