Writ jurisdiction and alternative remedy bar: CGST challenge to notice and order left for statutory appeal.

A writ challenge to a consolidated show cause notice and the resulting CGST adjudication order was held not maintainable because an efficacious statutory appeal was available under Section 107. The Court noted that the petitioners had not challenged the notice at the threshold and could raise limitation and jurisdiction issues in appeal. It also found no exceptional ground such as patent lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, or vires challenge to justify writ intervention, and noted that an identical issue was pending before a larger Bench of the Bombay High Court. The writ petition was dismissed in favour of the statutory appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging a consolidated show cause notice and the consequential order under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was maintainable in view of the availability of an efficacious alternative statutory remedy.

Analysis: The challenge was directed against a consolidated show cause notice covering multiple financial years and the resulting adjudication order. The Court noted that the petitioners had not challenged the notice at the threshold and had approached the writ court after the order in original was passed. It held that questions of limitation and jurisdiction could be effectively agitated in appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court further observed that no exceptional circumstance such as a clear violation of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction on the face of the record, or challenge to vires had been made out, and also noted that an identical issue was pending consideration before a larger Bench of the Bombay High Court.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in the circumstances and was dismissed, leaving the petitioners to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

---