Efficacious statutory remedy and fair hearing requirements limited writ interference in a GST assessment challenge.

Where an efficacious statutory appellate remedy exists under the GST law, the writ court will ordinarily decline interference if that remedy has not been exhausted; the challenge was therefore rejected on maintainability. On the merits, the Court found that the assessee's reply had been considered and a meaningful opportunity of hearing had been given before the assessment order, so there was no breach of natural justice or Section 75(4). The plea for remand was consequently declined, and the assessee was left to pursue the statutory appellate remedy if advised.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal could be entertained despite the availability of an efficacious statutory alternative remedy. (ii) Whether the assessment order suffered from violation of natural justice for want of opportunity of hearing and required remand.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal could be entertained despite the availability of an efficacious statutory alternative remedy.

Analysis: The record showed that the appellant had a statutory appellate remedy under the GST enactment and rules. The Court found that the learned Single Judge had already granted liberty to pursue that remedy within the stipulated period and had protected limitation. In these circumstances, the writ challenge was found to have been pursued without first exhausting the ordinary appellate channel.

Conclusion: The appeal on this issue was rejected against the appellant, and the existence of the alternative remedy weighed against interference.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment order suffered from violation of natural justice for want of opportunity of hearing and required remand.

Analysis: The Court held that the reply filed by the appellant had been duly considered by the Assessing Authority and that a proper opportunity of hearing had been afforded before passing the impugned order. The plea of breach of Section 75(4) of the GST regime was therefore not accepted, and the cited authorities were held to be inapplicable on the facts.

Conclusion: No violation of natural justice was found, and remand was declined.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the assessment failed on both maintainability and merits, and the appellant was left to pursue the statutory appellate remedy if so advised.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appellate remedy is available and the authority has afforded and considered a meaningful opportunity of hearing, the writ court will ordinarily decline interference in tax assessment proceedings.

---