Statutory appeal bar limits writ review where GST notice service and natural justice objections turn on disputed facts.

A writ challenge to a GST adjudication order was treated as unsuitable for Article 226 review because an effective statutory appeal was available under Section 107 of the Jharkhand GST Act. Allegations of non-service of notice, ex parte adjudication and breach of natural justice depended on seriously disputed questions of fact, including asserted service through the GST portal and registered email. In that setting, the court declined to bypass the alternate remedy and left the assessee to pursue the appellate route, with all contentions kept open before the appellate authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the adjudication order under the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was maintainable in view of the statutory appeal remedy and the disputed allegations of non-service of notice and violation of natural justice.

Analysis: The petitioner sought to bypass the statutory appellate remedy on the ground that the impugned order was ex parte and that no notice or hearing notice had been served. The respondents asserted service of notice under Rule 99(1) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, issuance of show cause notice under Section 73(1) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and communication of the order through the GST portal and registered email. The dispute on service and knowledge of the order involved seriously contested questions of fact, which are ordinarily not adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The availability of an appeal under Section 107 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 weighed against entertaining the writ petition, and the alleged breach of natural justice was not accepted as a ground to bypass the alternate remedy in the face of disputed facts.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the challenge to the assessment order was declined in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The Court refused to exercise writ jurisdiction and left the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal remedy, with all contentions kept open before the appellate authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an effective statutory appeal is available and the alleged violation of natural justice turns on seriously disputed questions of fact, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked to bypass the statutory remedy.

---