Premature writ challenge to GST intimation rejected where statutory adjudication and appeal remedies were still available.

A writ challenge to a GST intimation issued under Section 74(5) read with Rule 142(1A) was found premature because it targeted only a proposed demand before any adjudication. The Court noted that the special audit had already been completed and its report could be considered during adjudication, after which the assessee could pursue the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107. In these circumstances, interference under Article 226 was declined and the petition was treated as not maintainable at that stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the intimation issued under Section 74(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 142(1A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 was premature and not liable to be entertained in view of the availability of the statutory remedy.

Analysis: The challenge was directed only against an intimation raising a proposed demand, without any prior adjudication. The Court held that the writ proceedings were premature, particularly since the special audit had already been carried out and its report could be considered in adjudication. It further noted that the proper course was for the Department to issue a show-cause notice, conduct adjudication, and thereafter enable the assessee to pursue the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. In these circumstances, no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was warranted.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable at this stage and was declined on the ground of availability of the alternate statutory remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition challenging only a pre-adjudication tax intimation is premature where the statute provides a complete adjudicatory and appellate mechanism, and the Court will ordinarily decline interference under Article 226.

---