Writ Petition Is Maintainable Neither Against Adjudication Order Amenable to Statutory Appeal Nor as Parallel Remedy

Issue

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be entertained against GST adjudication orders involving evidentiary disputes (electronic data and handwritten notes) when an efficacious statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 is available.
2. Whether a writ petition can be maintained simultaneously alongside a pending statutory appeal challenging the same order-in-original.

Facts

• Search & Seizure: A common investigation into M/s Arora Communication led to search and seizure operations where a laptop and handwritten kachcha parchis were seized.
• Allegations & SCNs: The Department extracted electronic data alleging unaccounted supplies to various assessees without GST invoices, issuing both composite and individual Show Cause Notices (SCNs).
• Adjudication Orders: Orders-in-original were passed against multiple assessees (some of whom filed replies, while others did not).
• Writ Filings: The assessees filed writ petitions under Article 226 before the High Court challenging the orders-in-original, alleging violation of natural justice, non-service of notices, and lack of personal hearing.
• Parallel Challenge: In one of the writ petitions, the assessee had already filed a statutory appeal under Section 107 against the same order-in-original while simultaneously pursuing the writ.
• High Court Ruling: The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the statutory appellate remedy is an efficacious forum to appreciate evidentiary disputes (such as electronic data admissibility and kachcha parchis). It also held that parallel writ challenges cannot be maintained.
• SLP to Supreme Court: Aggrieved by the High Court’s dismissal, Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) were filed before the Supreme Court.

Decision

• Absence of Exceptional Grounds: The Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court.
• Efficacious Alternative Remedy: Matters involving appreciation of factual evidence, non-uniform natural justice claims, and admissibility of electronic records under Section 63 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, must be scrutinized by the statutory Appellate Authority under Section 107, not via writ jurisdiction.
• Bar on Parallel Proceedings: An assessee who has already invoked the statutory appellate remedy cannot maintain a parallel writ petition against the same order-in-original in the absence of manifest jurisdictional defects.
• SLP Dismissed: The Special Leave Petitions were dismissed, preserving all merits for the statutory appellate authority. (In favour of revenue)

Key Takeaways

• Exhaustion of Statutory Remedies: High Courts will not bypass the statutory appellate framework under Section 107 of the CGST Act under Article 226 unless a patent lack of jurisdiction or gross, uniform violation of natural justice is established.
• Evidentiary Disputes Fit for Appeal: Issues surrounding the admissibility, reliability, and corroboration of electronic evidence or seized manual records (kachcha parchis) require record-based factual appreciation best suited for appellate scrutiny.
• Strict Bar on Parallel Relief: Taxpayers cannot simultaneously pursue a statutory appeal and a writ petition against the same adjudication order.