Writ jurisdiction cannot bypass GST appellate limitation absent patent illegality or natural justice breach.

Where a special GST appellate remedy is time-bound, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be used to bypass the expired limitation or to defeat the statutory appellate scheme absent patent illegality. The High Court found that the challenge could have been raised immediately after the notice and assessment order, yet no appeal was filed in time; the writ was therefore not maintainable. It also held that no jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice was shown, since a reply to the show cause notice had been filed and a hearing had been granted. No interference was warranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be entertained after expiry of the statutory period for filing an appeal under the GST law so as to bypass the limitation prescribed for the appellate remedy; (ii) Whether any interference was warranted on the grounds of jurisdictional error or violation of principles of natural justice in relation to the impugned notice and assessment order.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be entertained after expiry of the statutory period for filing an appeal under the GST law so as to bypass the limitation prescribed for the appellate remedy.

Analysis: The petitioner approached the writ court after the limitation for filing the statutory appeal had expired. The order notes that the challenge raised in writ jurisdiction was available immediately after issuance of the notice and assessment order, yet no appeal was filed within time. The Court relied on the settled principle that tax limitation provisions are to be strictly followed and that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to do indirectly what cannot be done directly or to circumvent the statutory appellate scheme. The Court also referred to the principle that extraordinary writ power should not be exercised to render the limitation provision otiose.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable as a device to bypass the expired statutory appellate remedy, and the issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether any interference was warranted on the grounds of jurisdictional error or violation of principles of natural justice in relation to the impugned notice and assessment order.

Analysis: The Court recorded that the petitioner had filed a reply to the show cause notice and had also been granted an opportunity of hearing. On that basis, it found that no jurisdictional error and no violation of natural justice had been substantiated. The Court also held that the petitioner had approached the Court at a belated stage without a satisfactory explanation for the delay or laches.

Conclusion: No interference was called for on these grounds, and the issue was decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was held to be an impermissible attempt to evade the statutory appellate limitation, and the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction in the absence of any substantiated jurisdictional defect or breach of natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute prescribes a time-bound appellate remedy, writ jurisdiction should not be used to defeat that limitation or to bypass the statutory appellate procedure in the absence of patent illegality or violation of natural justice.

---