https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468452 Writ jurisdiction was held inappropriate where the impugned demand and notice could be examined through the statutory appellate mechanism. The pre-assessment communication relied on by the appellant was treated as an intimation, while the later Form GST DRC-01 notice under Section 74 read with Rule 142(1)(a) satisfied the statutory requirements. Because the appellant had replied to that notice as a show cause notice, the challenge could not bypass the alternate remedy merely by recharacterising it later. In the absence of a plea and proof that the notice or demand was without competence or otherwise void, the appeal was dismissed and the appellant was left to pursue the statutory appeal with all contentions open. en-us Mon, 02 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 May 2026 18:55:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468452 Writ jurisdiction was held inappropriate where the impugned demand and notice could be examined through the statutory appellate mechanism. The pre-assessment communication relied on by the appellant was treated as an intimation, while the later Form GST DRC-01 notice under Section 74 read with Rule 142(1)(a) satisfied the statutory requirements. Because the appellant had replied to that notice as a show cause notice, the challenge could not bypass the alternate remedy merely by recharacterising it later. In the absence of a plea and proof that the notice or demand was without competence or otherwise void, the appeal was dismissed and the appellant was left to pursue the statutory appeal with all contentions open. Case-Laws GST Mon, 02 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468452