GST writ maintainability is limited by alternate remedy; factual disputes and ordinary adjudication errors go to appeal.

Writ jurisdiction against GST demand proceedings remains exceptional where an alternate statutory appeal under Section 107 is available; interference is confined to cases of lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, violation of fundamental rights, or challenge to vires. Where the dispute turns on factual issues such as the nature of services rendered and the correctness of demand computation, the proper remedy is appellate scrutiny, not writ relief. Mere rejection of the defence in the adjudication order does not, by itself, constitute a natural justice violation. The writ petition was held not maintainable, and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the demand proceedings and order under the GST law was maintainable despite the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The Court held that the existence of an alternate statutory remedy does not absolutely bar writ jurisdiction, but interference is confined to exceptional cases such as lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, violation of fundamental rights, or challenge to vires. The petitioner's challenge turned primarily on disputed factual questions regarding the nature of services rendered and the correctness of the demand computation. Such matters were held to be amenable to appellate scrutiny and not a ground for invoking writ jurisdiction. The Court further held that mere rejection of the petitioner's defence in the adjudication order did not amount to violation of natural justice. The impugned order was treated, at most, as an error in exercise of jurisdiction and not a case of absence of jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was held to be not maintainable and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory remedy of appeal.

---