GST writ challenge on disputed amalgamation facts left to appellate remedy, with delay condonation left open.

A writ challenge to a GST show cause notice, order-in-original and demand was not entertained where the petitioner first raised amalgamation and non-existence of the earlier registration before the writ court. The dispute involved reversal of input tax credit for the relevant period under the CGST and IGST framework, but the amalgamation plea raised disputed facts and had not been urged before the adjudicating authority, especially where no reply was filed to the notice and no personal hearing was attended. The court held the matter should go to the statutory appellate forum, with liberty to seek condonation of delay if an appeal was filed promptly with the required deposit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the show cause notice, order-in-original and GST demand should be entertained when the petitioner raised the plea of amalgamation and non-existence of the earlier GST registration for the first time before the writ court, and whether the petitioner should be relegated to the appellate remedy.

Analysis: The dispute concerned reversal of input tax credit for the period July 2017 to March 2018 under Section 16(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Section 41 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner's amalgamation-related contention involved disputed facts and had not been urged before the adjudicating authority, where the petitioner had not responded to the show cause notice or appeared for personal hearing. In these circumstances, the writ court found it appropriate to leave the factual controversy to the statutory appellate forum and to permit consideration of delay if an appeal was filed promptly with the requisite deposit.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of by relegating the petitioner to the appellate remedy, with liberty to seek condonation of delay before the appellate authority.

---