Writ jurisdiction and GST demand orders: High Court declined interference where an effective statutory appeal was available.

Interference under Article 226 is ordinarily not warranted against an order under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act and the Kerala GST Act where an efficacious statutory appeal is available. The impugned order noted that the petitioner was heard, the authorised representative was given an opportunity, and the submissions were considered; the challenge in substance sought reappreciation of documents and factual findings on availment and reversal of input tax credit and supporting evidence. Such factual review is not normally undertaken in writ jurisdiction, and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was warranted against an order under Section 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Section 73(9) of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on the grounds of alleged non-consideration of documents and factual error, despite availability of an effective statutory appeal.

Analysis: The impugned order recorded that the petitioner was heard, the authorised representative was afforded an opportunity, and the contentions were considered. The challenge essentially required reappreciation of documents and examination of factual findings regarding availment and reversal of input tax credit and the existence of supporting evidence. Such exercise is not ordinarily undertaken in writ jurisdiction, particularly where the statute provides an efficacious alternative remedy.

Conclusion: Interference was not warranted and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.

---