Writ jurisdiction and alternate remedy under GST: factual disputes on fraud and no patent natural justice breach kept the appeal route open.

A writ challenge to an Order-in-Original under Section 74 of the CGST Act was held not maintainable because an efficacious statutory appeal was available. The Court found that whether the ingredients of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression were satisfied involved disputed facts that could not be re-examined in writ jurisdiction. It also held that natural justice was not patently violated, as notice had been issued and a reply filed, and the grievance of non-consideration of contentions did not justify bypassing the appellate remedy. The merits of the order were left open for the appellate authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the Order-in-Original under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 was maintainable despite the availability of an efficacious statutory appeal on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and violation of natural justice.

Analysis: The petitioner accepted the availability of an appellate remedy but sought to invoke the exceptions to the alternate-remedy rule. The Court held that the challenge to the invocation of Section 74 involved disputed factual questions as to whether the ingredients of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression were satisfied, and such questions could not be re-evaluated in writ jurisdiction. It further held that the show-cause notice had been issued, a reply had been filed, and the complaint of non-consideration of contentions did not disclose a patent breach of natural justice. The case did not fall within the narrow exceptions permitting bypass of the statutory appeal, and the merits of the Order-in-Original were left open for examination by the appellate authority.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertainable and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy.

---