Writ jurisdiction and GST appellate remedy: High Court declines writ interference but permits delayed appeal with pre-deposit.

Where a GST demand was preceded by a show cause notice but the taxpayer filed no reply and did not participate in adjudication, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was not exercised and the statutory appellate remedy was held to be the proper course. Despite expiry of the appellate limitation period, the Court granted limited liberty to file the appeal within thirty days with the requisite pre-deposit, directing that limitation should not bar filing. It was also clarified that such filing would not amount to an admission regarding proprietorship of M/s Netwest Traders, and the appellate authority would decide the dispute, including the alleged registration amendment, on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition challenging the GST demand was entertainable in view of the availability of an appellate remedy and the petitioner's non-participation in the adjudicatory proceedings. (ii) Whether, in the facts alleged regarding misuse of GST registration, the petitioner could be permitted to file an appeal after expiry of limitation with the requisite pre-deposit.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition challenging the GST demand was entertainable in view of the availability of an appellate remedy and the petitioner's non-participation in the adjudicatory proceedings.

Analysis: The impugned demand had been preceded by a show cause notice, but no reply was filed and the petitioner did not participate in the proceedings. In these circumstances, the challenge was not considered fit for exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the proper course was to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits and the petitioner was left to avail the appellate remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether, in the facts alleged regarding misuse of GST registration, the petitioner could be permitted to file an appeal after expiry of limitation with the requisite pre-deposit.

Analysis: Although the limitation for appeal under the GST law had expired, the petitioner's case of alleged misuse of the GST registration was noticed. The Court permitted the appeal to be filed within thirty days along with the requisite pre-deposit, and directed that such filing would not be rejected on limitation grounds. It was further clarified that filing of the appeal would not amount to an admission regarding proprietorship of M/s Netwest Traders, and the appellate authority would examine whether the registration had in fact been amended by the petitioner.

Conclusion: Limited liberty was granted to file the statutory appeal within thirty days with pre-deposit, and the appellate authority was directed to consider the controversy on merits.

Final Conclusion: The petition was disposed of by declining writ interference and directing the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal with limited protection against dismissal on limitation grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appellate remedy exists and the assessee has not participated in the original proceedings, writ jurisdiction ordinarily will not be exercised; however, in an exceptional factual setting, limited liberty may be granted to pursue the appeal with protection against limitation consequences.

---