Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>GST demand based on data mismatch and alleged natural justice breach rejected; writ dismissed, petitioner directed to use statutory appeal remedy.</h1> Alleged breach of natural justice in issuance of a GST demand notice based on mismatch was rejected on the ground that no exceptional or extraordinary ... Violation of principles of natural justice - GST DRC-01 on account of mismatch - Efficacy of alternative statutory remedy - Maintainability of writ under Article 226 - Minimal judicial interference where statutory appeal is available - Appeal u/s 107 of HGST Act - HELD THAT:- It is a settled position that interference in such like matters has to be minimal and actuated only in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. Gainful reference in this regard can be made to judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon and others [2010 (7) TMI 829 - SUPREME COURT] and Kakinada and ors. Vs. M/s Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care [2020 (5) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT] Though learned counsel for petitioner was at pains to submit that there has been a violation of principal of natural justice, thus, justifying intervention by this Court, we do not find this argument to be substantiated from the file and facts on record. In the given facts and circumstances and timelines as have been detailed in foregoing paras, we do not find existence of any such exceptional and extraordinary circumstance, which calls for interference by this Court in present proceedings at this stage. Writ petition is dismissed with liberty to petitioner to avail statutory remedy available to it in accordance with law. Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the order dated 01.12.2025 passed under Section 74 of HGST/CGST/IGST Act, 2017 should be entertained on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, or whether the petitioner must be relegated to the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107.Analysis: The Court examined the timeline of notices, adjournments sought, and absence of substantive response by the petitioner, noting that the petitioner did not respond to ASMT-10 nor to show cause notice DRC-01 and sought an adjournment only shortly before the impugned order. The Court applied established principles that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is to be exercised sparingly where an efficacious statutory remedy exists, and intervention is justified only in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. The Court found no such exceptional circumstances or substantiated breach of natural justice on the record that would warrant overriding the availability of the statutory appeal under Section 107.Conclusion: Writ petition dismissed; petitioner relegated to statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 and no interference is warranted on merits at this stage.Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious alternative statutory remedy exists, courts will decline to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 except in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances; mere procedural grievances or requests for adjournment do not displace the availability of the statutory appeal absent shown violation of natural justice.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
