Statutory appeal remedy bars belated GST writ challenge; unsigned DRC-07 did not invalidate a timely signed assessment order.

Writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be invoked against a GST assessment where an efficacious statutory appeal remedy exists and the challenge is brought after expiry of the prescribed limitation. The High Court noted that the order-in-original was physically signed and passed within the extended limitation period, so the later summary in DRC-07 did not vitiate the underlying order. It also held that the absence of a signature on DRC-07, by itself, did not cause prejudice or justify interference. Accordingly, the writ petition was found not entertainable and relief was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the GST order and summary DRC-07 was maintainable in view of the statutory appeal remedy and limitation, and whether the alleged absence of signature on DRC-07 or the timing of its issuance warranted interference.

Analysis: The petition was filed beyond the statutory period for pursuing the appellate remedy under the GST regime. The Court relied on the principle that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked as a matter of course after expiry of the maximum prescribed limitation when an efficacious statutory remedy was available. It also noted that the order-in-original bore a physical signature and had been passed within the extended limitation period, while DRC-07 was only a summary of the order and any want of signature on it did not cause prejudice to the petitioner.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertainable and interference was declined.

Ratio Decidendi: When a statutory appeal remedy exists and the writ petition is filed after expiry of the prescribed limitation, the High Court should not ordinarily entertain the petition merely because writ jurisdiction is wide; a summary DRC-07 does not invalidate a duly signed and timely order-in-original.

---