GST writ maintainability rejected where statutory appeal existed and prior waiver application was concealed.

A writ challenge to a GST assessment order was held not maintainable because the petitioner had an efficacious statutory alternative remedy before the appellate authority. The Court noted that the assessment order had already been dealt with in proceedings under the waiver provision, where waiver of interest and penalty had been considered and allowed. It also treated the petitioner's failure to disclose that earlier waiver application as a factor against exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226. On these grounds, the Court declined interference and dismissed the petition.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the assessment order was maintainable in view of the petitioner's recourse to the statutory alternative remedy under the GST framework, and whether the concealment of the earlier application under the waiver provision warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The impugned order had already been the subject of proceedings under Section 128A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in which the request for waiver of interest and penalty had been considered and allowed. In these circumstances, the Court found that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy before the appellate authority against the assessment order. The Court also noticed that the petitioner had not disclosed the filing of the application under Section 128A in the writ petition, and held that such concealment, coupled with availability of an alternative remedy, weighed against exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and no interference under Article 226 was warranted; the petition was dismissed.

---