Statutory appeal and audit-based reassessment can bar writ relief where natural justice and jurisdiction objections fail.

An efficacious statutory appeal ordinarily bars writ jurisdiction under Article 226, and the recognised exceptions are violation of fundamental rights, breach of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or challenge to vires. On the facts, the taxpayer had notice, time to respond, an extended opportunity for reply, and a personal hearing, so no material denial of natural justice was shown; the writ petition was therefore not maintainable. After audit under Section 65, the statute permits the proper officer to initiate action where tax is found unpaid, short paid, refunded erroneously, or input tax credit is wrongly availed or utilised. The jurisdictional challenge to proceedings under Section 73 accordingly failed, and the statutory appellate remedy remained available.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the efficacious statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 notwithstanding the plea of violation of natural justice. (ii) Whether, after audit proceedings under Section 65 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the proper officer lacked jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 73 of the Jammu and Kashmir Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the efficacious statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 notwithstanding the plea of violation of natural justice.

Analysis: The availability of an effective statutory appeal ordinarily bars invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The recognized exceptions are violation of fundamental rights, breach of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, and challenge to vires. On the facts, the petitioner was issued notice, granted time to respond, and given an extended opportunity for reply and personal hearing. The record did not establish denial of hearing or any material breach of natural justice.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on this ground, and the alternative appellate remedy was required to be pursued.

Issue (ii): Whether, after audit proceedings under Section 65 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the proper officer lacked jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 73 of the Jammu and Kashmir Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Section 65 expressly provides that where audit results in detection of tax not paid, short paid, erroneously refunded, or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised, the proper officer may initiate action under Sections 73 or 74. Accordingly, the initiation of proceedings after audit was supported by the statutory scheme and could not be treated as lacking jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional challenge failed, and initiation of proceedings under Section 73 was held to be permissible.

Final Conclusion: The petition was held not entertainable under writ jurisdiction, and the petitioner was left to work out the statutory appellate remedy against the impugned demand order.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available, writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised unless a recognized exception is established, and an audit finding of tax short payment may lawfully lead to proceedings under Sections 73 or 74 as provided by the statute.

---