Alternative Remedy Rule in GST: writ challenge to demand order rejected where statutory appeal remained available.

A writ petition challenging a GST demand order was held not maintainable because the impugned order was appealable under Section 107 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court reiterated that Article 226 should ordinarily not be used where an efficacious statutory remedy exists, subject only to recognised exceptions such as violation of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, breach of fundamental rights, or challenge to vires. As the petitioner had participated in the proceedings, filed a detailed reply to the show cause notice, and showed no material denial of personal hearing or other ex facie breach of natural justice, there was no basis to bypass the appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging a GST demand order was maintainable despite the statutory appeal remedy, and whether the case fell within the exception of violation of principles of natural justice.

Analysis: The impugned order under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was appealable under Section 107, and the Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 ordinarily should not be invoked where an efficacious statutory remedy exists. The recognised exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy were noted, including violation of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, fundamental rights, and challenge to vires. On the facts, the petitioner had participated in the proceedings and filed a detailed reply to the show cause notice, and there was no material to show denial of a requested personal hearing or any ex facie breach of natural justice. The Court therefore found no basis to bypass the statutory appellate remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appeal remedy.

---