GST writ remedy cannot bypass statutory appeal where pre-deposit, limitation, and tribunal remedy remain unresolved.

Writ jurisdiction was held unavailable to bypass the GST appellate framework where notices and the demand order had been issued on the portal and the petitioner produced no material to show non-service. The appeal had already been rejected for want of mandatory pre-deposit and on limitation, and the Court found that an effective further statutory remedy before the GST Tribunal remained available. The allegation that the demand exceeded the show-cause notice was not treated as sufficient to override the statutory remedy structure. The writ petition was therefore not entertained and was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory GST remedy, the petitioner's failure to pursue the appeal within limitation and to make the required pre-deposit, and the challenge based on the alleged excess demand over the show-cause notice.

Analysis: The impugned demand arose from proceedings under the GST regime, where notices and the final order were found to have been issued on the portal. The petitioner did not place material to establish lack of service. The appellate authority had dismissed the appeal for want of mandatory pre-deposit and also on limitation. The Court held that the petitioner could not use writ jurisdiction to bypass the statutory appellate framework, especially when an effective further remedy before the GST Tribunal remained available. The plea founded on excess demand was not accepted as a basis to override the statutory remedy structure in these circumstances.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and stood dismissed, leaving the petitioner to pursue the available statutory remedy.

---