Challenges to non-supply of relied-upon documents fall within the statutory appellate framework.

The petitioner challenged a fresh show-cause notice in Form GST MOV-10 and an adjudication order in Form GST MOV-11 confiscating goods and a conveyance under Section 130 of the CGST Act.

The notice and order followed an earlier round of litigation in which the High Court had set aside the prior proceedings and remanded the matter for reconsideration.

On remand, the petitioner received a fresh notice, was asked to attend a personal hearing, and filed a written reply; the adjudicating authority then confirmed the proposed demand.

The petitioner alleged, among other things, that the officer lacked authorization under Rule 138B and that relevant documents had not been supplied.

The State relied on the petitioner’s statutory appeal under Section 107.

1. Whether the High Court should entertain the writ petition despite the alternative statutory appeal under Section 107, in light of the alleged jurisdictional and natural-justice defects

2. Whether the physical verification and ensuing proceedings violated Rule 138B because the officer was not duly authorized

3. Whether the alleged non-supply of relied-upon documents justified writ intervention, rather than being pursued in the statutory appeal

Section 107 of the CGST Act provides a statutory appellate remedy.

Under Assistant Commissioner of State Tax v. Commercial Steel Ltd., an alternative remedy does not absolutely bar a petition under Article 226, but writ intervention is ordinarily confined to exceptional cases involving breach of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or a challenge to the vires of legislation.

Rule 138B governs verification of documents and conveyances and requires physical verification to be carried out by the proper officer authorized by the Commissioner or an empowered officer; its proviso permits another officer to verify a specific conveyance upon specified information of tax evasion and the requisite approval.

Complaints about non-supply of relied-upon documents or the adjudicating authority’s treatment of the record may be examined through the statutory appellate process and, without more, do not warrant bypassing that remedy.

The Court found no Rule 138B violation on the record, concluding that the physical verification had been conducted by a proper officer authorized by the Commissioner.

It also noted that the petitioner had received the relevant forms and documents, was given an opportunity to attend a hearing, and had filed a reply that the authority considered before passing a detailed order.

The alleged non-supply or non-consideration of documents concerned the adjudicatory record and could be raised in an appeal; the Court therefore found none of the Commercial Steel exceptions established.

The petitioner remained at liberty to pursue the statutory appeal; no relief was granted in the writ petition.