Writ jurisdiction and tax rectification remedies: challenge to a Section 74 CGST/SGST assessment was declined in favour of statutory recourse.

A writ petition challenging a CGST/SGST assessment under Section 74 was not entertained because the dispute involved alleged denial of input tax credit and claimed errors in the order, matters better dealt with through statutory remedies. Where the grievance was an apparent mistake in the order, rectification under Section 161 was the appropriate course; where the grievance concerned the correctness of the legal decision itself, the petitioner had to pursue the available tax remedies. The assessment order was left undisturbed and the writ petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Acts was liable to be entertained, and whether the petitioner should be relegated to rectification or other statutory remedies.

Analysis: The challenge concerned alleged denial of eligible input tax credit and an asserted error in the assessment order. The Court held that the dispute could not be examined in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly where the petitioner claimed either a mistake in the order requiring rectification or an incorrect legal decision requiring recourse to statutory remedies. The Court noted that the proper course, if an error in the order was asserted, was an application for rectification under Section 161 of the CGST/SGST Acts.

Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner was left to pursue the available statutory remedies, and the assessment order under Section 74 remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court will not ordinarily interfere with a tax order involving disputed factual questions or alleged assessment errors where rectification and other statutory remedies are available.

---