Writ interference in GST registration cancellation refused where disputed facts and pending scrutiny required statutory remedies.

Cancellation of GST registration was considered in the context of pending scrutiny under Section 61 and an available statutory appeal. Because the dispute turned on contested factual allegations, including alleged fake or paper transactions, the Court held that such matters were not suitable for determination on writ facts alone. It further noted that pending scrutiny was not a jurisdictional bar to cancellation proceedings under Section 29, and that the alleged conduct could, if proved, fall within Rule 21(b). Interference under Article 226 was therefore declined, with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the cancellation of GST registration could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction when scrutiny proceedings under Section 61 were still pending and a statutory appeal was available.

Analysis: The petition involved disputed factual allegations concerning alleged fake or paper transactions, which were not amenable to determination on writ facts alone. The pending scrutiny under Section 61 had not concluded, but that circumstance was not treated as a jurisdictional bar to cancellation proceedings under Section 29. The Court also noted that the allegation, if ultimately proved, could fall within Rule 21(b) governing cancellation of registration. In these circumstances, the Court declined to pre-judge the merits or make observations that could prejudice the pending statutory proceedings.

Outcome: Interference under Article 226 was declined and the writ petitions were disposed of with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.

---