Writ dismissed as withdrawn; Petitioner directed to file Appeal under Section 107
Issue
Whether a writ petition challenging a GST demand order (passed under Section 74) on the procedural ground that separate orders were not passed for each financial year is maintainable when an alternative efficacious remedy (appeal) exists.
Facts
The Order: The Adjudicating Authority issued a consolidated Show Cause Notice (SCN) covering the period July 2017 to March 2022 and subsequently passed a single order in Form GST DRC-07 raising the GST liability.
Petitioner’s Argument: The petitioner contended that the authority ought to have passed separate orders for each financial year rather than a single consolidated order for the entire five-year block.
High Court Ruling: The High Court refused to entertain the petition, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Asstt. Commissioner of State Tax v. Commercial Steel Ltd. The Court held that since an alternative efficacious remedy (filing an appeal under Section 107) was available, the writ jurisdiction should not be invoked.
Supreme Court Action: The petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the High Court’s dismissal.
Decision
Withdrawal: Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the SLP.
Liberty Granted: The petitioner requested, and was granted, liberty to approach the Appellate Authority by filing a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
Outcome: The SLP was dismissed as withdrawn. Effectively, the ruling reinforces that procedural challenges to demand orders should first go through the appellate hierarchy, not directly to the High Court.
Key Takeaways
Exhaustion of Remedies: Courts are increasingly reluctant to entertain Writ Petitions against GST assessment orders if a statutory appeal (Section 107) is available, unless there is a gross violation of natural justice or jurisdiction.
Consolidated vs. Separate Orders: While the petitioner argued for separate orders (a common procedural defense relying on State of Jharkhand v. Tata Steel), this specific case was dismissed on the grounds of “alternative remedy” rather than deciding the merit of the “single order” issue itself.
Strategy: If you receive a consolidated order for multiple years (2017-2022), the safest route is often to file an appeal within the 3-month limitation period rather than risking time on a Writ Petition that might be dismissed on maintainability grounds.