Statutory appeal bars writ review where GST demand challenge rests on disputed fraud and misappropriation claims.

A writ challenge to GST demand orders was held not maintainable where an efficacious statutory appeal was available and had not been pursued. The Court treated service on the petitioner's Chartered Accountant as service on the petitioner, and held that disputed allegations of fraud and misappropriation raised factual issues unsuitable for writ adjudication. It also upheld rejection of rectification because the requested correction did not involve an apparent error on the face of the record and could not be used to reopen the assessment. The petition was dismissed, and the rectification refusal was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition challenging the GST demand orders was maintainable despite the availability of a statutory appeal, in the backdrop of the alleged denial of hearing and the claim that the petitioner's Chartered Accountant had misappropriated tax payments; (ii) Whether rejection of the rectification request was liable to be interfered with.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition challenging the GST demand orders was maintainable despite the availability of a statutory appeal, in the backdrop of the alleged denial of hearing and the claim that the petitioner's Chartered Accountant had misappropriated tax payments.

Analysis: The impugned orders had been passed under the GST assessment framework after issuance of notices and opportunities of hearing. The petitioner had an efficacious appellate remedy under the statute, but chose not to pursue it. The Court also noted that the Chartered Accountant was acting on behalf of the petitioner, so service upon him could not be disregarded by the petitioner. The plea of fraud and misappropriation raised a disputed question of fact, which was not fit for adjudication in writ proceedings and did not justify bypassing the statutory appellate mechanism.

Conclusion: The challenge to the demand orders was not maintainable in writ jurisdiction and failed.

Issue (ii): Whether rejection of the rectification request was liable to be interfered with.

Analysis: The rectification application was found to be outside the scope of correction of an apparent error on the face of the record. The Court accepted the authority's view that the requested correction could not be entertained through rectification and did not disclose any basis for interference.

Conclusion: The rejection of rectification was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition disclosed no extraordinary ground for bypassing the statutory appeal, and the challenge to the rectification rejection also did not merit interference. The petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available, writ interference is not warranted on a disputed factual plea of fraud or misappropriation, and rectification cannot be used to reopen matters not constituting an apparent error on the face of the record.

---