Writ interference under the CGST Act remains exceptional; statutory appeal, natural justice, and penalty competence were all upheld.

Writ interference under the CGST Act is exceptional where a statutory appeal under Section 107 exists; absent patent natural justice breach, jurisdictional excess, or vires challenge, the petitioner must pursue appeal, and the writ was rejected. Non-consideration of a reply under Section 74(9) was not shown where the order recorded a reply and reasons, so appellate review was the proper forum. Allegations of non-service of hearing notices, coercive recording of statement, and denial of cross-examination involved disputed facts and merits, not a clear jurisdictional defect. The adjudicating authority was also held competent to impose consequential penalties under Sections 122(1)(ii) and 122(3)(e).

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the statutory appellate remedy in view of the alleged violation of natural justice and jurisdictional error; (ii) whether non-consideration of the reply under Section 74(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 vitiated the adjudication; (iii) whether the alleged non-service of personal hearing notices under Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the complaint regarding coercive statement and denial of cross-examination disclosed a ground for writ interference; (iv) whether the adjudicating authority lacked power to impose penalties under Sections 122(1)(ii) and 122(3)(e) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the statutory appellate remedy in view of the alleged violation of natural justice and jurisdictional error

Analysis: The availability of an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ordinarily requires the aggrieved person to pursue the statutory remedy. The exception for writ intervention survives only where there is breach of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or a challenge to vires. The grounds raised in the petition were examined against these exceptions and were found not to disclose a patent case warranting bypass of the appellate mechanism.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on the facts and the petitioner was to be relegated to the statutory appeal.

Issue (ii): whether non-consideration of the reply under Section 74(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 vitiated the adjudication

Analysis: Section 74(9) obligates the proper officer to consider the representation before determining tax, interest and penalty. The order recorded a reply and contained reasons, and the adequacy of those reasons and the correctness of the findings were held to be matters for appellate scrutiny rather than writ review. A mere absence of elaborate discussion of every submission did not establish non-consideration.

Conclusion: No writ interference was warranted on the alleged breach of Section 74(9).

Issue (iii): whether the alleged non-service of personal hearing notices under Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the complaint regarding coercive statement and denial of cross-examination disclosed a ground for writ interference

Analysis: The plea regarding service of hearing notices turned on disputed questions of fact and required examination of departmental records. The challenge to the statement recorded under Section 70, the allegation of coercion, its retraction, and the request for cross-examination all went to evidentiary appreciation and the merits of adjudication. These matters did not show a self-evident violation of natural justice or a jurisdictional defect on the face of the record.

Conclusion: No ground for writ intervention was made out on these contentions.

Issue (iv): whether the adjudicating authority lacked power to impose penalties under Sections 122(1)(ii) and 122(3)(e) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

Analysis: The challenge to penalty competence was rejected in light of the statutory scheme, including Explanation 1(ii) to Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rule 142 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, which contemplate consequential proceedings being concluded in the adjudication itself. The view that the proper officer determining proceedings under Section 74 can impose consequential penalty was treated as settled and not indicative of lack of jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The adjudicating authority was held competent to impose the penalties.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction because the grievances either involved factual disputes or issues suitable for statutory appeal, and no patent jurisdictional error or manifest denial of natural justice was established.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a complete statutory appellate remedy exists, writ interference is justified only in exceptional cases such as patent violation of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, breach of fundamental rights, or a challenge to vires.

---