Sections 73 and 74 under GST operate separately; writ relief declined in favour of the statutory appeal remedy.

Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act operate in different fields, so closure of proceedings under Section 73 on similar documents did not by itself bar separate action under Section 74; the petitioner's material remained open to independent scrutiny by the competent authority. The Court also held that where an efficacious statutory appeal was available, issues concerning appreciation of evidence, opportunity to produce additional material, and pre-deposit were matters for the appellate authority, so writ interference was declined and the petitioner was relegated to appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether proceedings under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 were barred because the State GST authorities had closed proceedings under Section 73 of the same Act on similar documents and evidence; (ii) whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the alternate statutory appellate remedy and the availability of reappreciation of evidence before the appellate authority.

Issue (i): Whether proceedings under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 were barred because the State GST authorities had closed proceedings under Section 73 of the same Act on similar documents and evidence.

Analysis: Sections 73 and 74 operate in different fields and are based on different considerations. Exoneration in proceedings under Section 73, by itself, does not preclude separate action by the Central GST authorities under Section 74. The material placed by the petitioner in response to the show-cause notice was independently open to scrutiny and appreciation by the competent authority.

Conclusion: The challenge based on bar of proceedings failed and the proceedings under Section 74 were not held to be invalid on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the alternate statutory appellate remedy and the availability of reappreciation of evidence before the appellate authority.

Analysis: The grievance regarding appreciation of evidence, alleged insufficiency of opportunity to produce additional material, and the burden of statutory pre-deposit were all matters capable of examination by the appellate authority. The Court found no reason to exercise writ jurisdiction where the statute provided an efficacious appeal.

Conclusion: The petition was not entertained and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined writ interference, upheld the availability of the statutory appeal, and left the merits of the assessment dispute to be examined in appeal.

---