Alternative statutory remedy under GST bars writ challenge where notice, hearing, and a reasoned order are already on record.

Where an effective statutory appeal is available under Section 107 of the CGST Act, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked against a show cause notice or Order-in-Original. The Rajasthan HC found that service of notice, participation in adjudication, and a speaking order showed no breach of natural justice, and the existence of a jurisdictional objection did not justify bypassing the appellate remedy on these facts. No exceptional ground for writ interference was established, so the petition was dismissed and the petitioner was left to pursue the statutory appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; (ii) whether the case fell within any exception permitting writ interference against the show cause notice and the Order-in-Original.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

Analysis: The dispute arose out of proceedings under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Order-in-Original had been passed after service of notice and participation by the petitioner in the adjudication process. In such circumstances, the Court treated the appellate remedy under Section 107 as efficacious and ordinarily sufficient, and declined to entertain the writ petition in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was held to be not maintainable in view of the alternative statutory remedy, and the petitioner was left to pursue an appeal under Section 107.

Issue (ii): whether the case fell within any exception permitting writ interference against the show cause notice and the Order-in-Original

Analysis: The Court found no breach of natural justice because the show cause notice had been served, objections were raised by the petitioner in adjudication, and a speaking and reasoned order was passed thereafter. The Court also held that the existence of a jurisdictional objection did not justify bypassing the appellate remedy on the facts of the case, particularly when the challenge was to proceedings under Section 74 and the objections had already been dealt with by the adjudicating authority.

Conclusion: No exceptional ground for writ interference was made out.

Final Conclusion: The writ court declined to enter into the merits of the tax demand proceedings and directed the petitioner to work out its remedy in appeal, resulting in dismissal of the petition.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an effective statutory appeal is available under the GST law and no violation of natural justice or other exceptional ground is shown, writ jurisdiction should not be invoked to challenge a notice or adjudication order.

---