Writ petition against GST demand entertained prima facie under Article 226, with interim stay granted despite alternate remedy concerns.

A GST writ petition challenged a consolidated demand, the jurisdiction of the impugned order, the levy on ENA, and reliance on the amendment to Section 9 of the CGST Act. The Bombay High Court recorded a prima facie view that the petition could be entertained under Article 226 despite the availability of an alternate statutory remedy, while noting the respondent's request to keep that question open and to answer the legal submissions later. Interim protection was granted by staying the impugned order, and notice was issued for further consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition could be entertained despite the availability of an alternate statutory remedy under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and whether interim protection should be granted against the impugned order.

Analysis: The petitioner challenged a consolidated GST demand and questioned the jurisdiction of the impugned order, relying on the alleged impermissibility of consolidated notice, the levy on ENA, and the amendment to Section 9 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court recorded a prima facie view that the petition could be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, while also noticing the respondent's request to keep the question of alternate remedy open and to seek time to answer the legal submissions.

Outcome: The Court granted interim stay to the impugned order, issued notice returnable on 14.02.2025, and kept the matter pending for further consideration.

---