GST show-cause notice challenge rejected where fraud and suppression were alleged and statutory adjudication remained available.

A writ challenge to a GST show-cause notice was held not maintainable where the notice contained specific allegations of fraud, wilful misstatement and suppression of facts. The High Court held that, at the notice stage, it should not decide whether the proper officer ought to have proceeded under a lesser limitation provision; that issue could be tested in the statutory adjudication proceedings. Because the competent authority remained available to examine the demand and limitation question, interference under Article 226 was not warranted. The challenge to the notice was therefore rejected and writ relief declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the show-cause notice under the GST law was maintainable and whether the High Court should interfere at the notice stage.

Analysis: The petition arose from a show-cause notice issued under the GST provisions after search, inspection and verification proceedings. The notice contained specific allegations of fraud, wilful misstatement and suppression of facts. The Court noted that the petitioner's reliance on cases where the notice contained no such allegation was misplaced on the facts. It further held that, at the stage of issuance of notice under the fraud-based provision, the writ court should not adjudicate whether the proper officer ought to have proceeded under the lesser limitation provision. That question was left to be examined in the adjudication proceedings. The availability of the statutory remedy was also relevant, and the Court applied the principle that interference under Article 226 is not warranted when the dispute can be examined by the competent authority in the pending proceedings.

Conclusion: The challenge to the show-cause notice was rejected and the petition was not entertained in writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition should not ordinarily be used to quash a GST show-cause notice where the notice contains specific allegations of fraud or suppression and the statutory adjudication process remains available to test the legality of the demand and the applicable limitation.

---