Writ jurisdiction declined where a statutory GST remedy existed and notice was served by email.

The Delhi High Court declined to entertain a writ petition because an efficacious statutory remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was available. The Court noted that the show cause notice, relied-upon documents, and personal hearing notices had been sent by email, and that the petitioner had not disclosed receipt of the notice. In these circumstances, the extraordinary writ jurisdiction was refused, and the petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory remedy, with liberty to file the challenge by 15 July 2025 along with the required pre-deposit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the impugned order was maintainable when an efficacious statutory appeal lay under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The petitioner's challenge was met with the finding that the show cause notice and relied upon documents had been served by email, and that personal hearing notices had also been issued. In view of the availability of the appellate remedy against the impugned order, and the petitioner's non-disclosure of receipt of the notice, the extraordinary writ jurisdiction was declined. The Court also noted that the dispute arose from allegations of fraudulent input tax credit involving multiple entities.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and the petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, with liberty to file the appeal by 15 July 2025 along with the requisite pre-deposit.

---