Writ jurisdiction cannot bypass statutory appeal where pre-deposit, delay, and non-prosecution show neglect of remedies.

A writ petition was held not maintainable where the taxpayer had an available statutory appellate remedy but failed to pursue it diligently. The Court noted that GST demand and notices were issued on the portal, with no material showing improper publication or lack of knowledge. It also relied on the appellate record that the appeal lacked the mandatory pre-deposit, no condonation application was filed, and the petitioner remained absent on hearing dates. On these facts, the Court treated the conduct as negligent and refused to use writ jurisdiction to bypass the appellate mechanism, leading to dismissal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of the statutory appellate remedy, the delay in filing appeal, and non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement.

Analysis: The demand and subsequent notices were issued on the GST portal, and no material was produced to show that the notices were published only in an additional tab or that the petitioner lacked knowledge of the proceedings. The appellate authority recorded that the appeal was filed without the mandatory pre-deposit, that no application for condonation of delay was filed, and that the petitioner remained absent on the scheduled dates of hearing. In these circumstances, the Court found that the petitioner had been negligent in pursuing the statutory remedies and could not invoke writ jurisdiction to circumvent the appellate mechanism.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed against the petitioner.

---