Statutory appeal is the appropriate remedy for challenging GST orders involving reappreciation of evidence.

The Petitioners challenged the Order in Original dated March 30, 2026, issued by the Central GST Authorities under Section 74 of the CGST Act

The Petitioners contended that the proceedings were barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the Act because State GST Authorities had already closed proceedings on the same set of documents under Section 73

They further alleged violations of Article 14, claiming the Central Authorities refused to accept the same evidence that led to their exoneration by State authorities and failed to provide adequate opportunity for personal hearing or production of additional documents

The Respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, citing the availability of an alternative statutory remedy (appeal)

1. Whether a writ petition is maintainable against an Order in Original when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available under the Act

2. Whether the closure of proceedings under Section 73 by State GST Authorities automatically precludes the Central GST Authorities from initiating proceedings under Section 74 based on similar material

3. Whether the requirement of a statutory pre-deposit for an appeal justifies the exercise of writ jurisdiction

Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017, which prevents multiple proceedings on the same subject matter, and Sections 73 and 74, which govern the determination of tax not paid or short-paid for reasons other than fraud and by reason of fraud/misstatement respectively

The Court followed the established principle of administrative law that High Courts should refrain from exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution when an efficacious alternative statutory remedy exists

The powers of the Appellate Authority include the capacity to re-appreciate evidence and permit additional evidence

The Court reasoned that Sections 73 and 74 of the Act operate in "altogether different arenas" and on different legal considerations; thus, an exoneration under the former does not automatically bar proceedings under the latter

The Court found that the Petitioner’s grievances regarding "inappropriate appreciation of evidence" or the denial of opportunities to produce additional documents are factual disputes

It held that the Appellate Authority is the competent forum to re-appreciate the entire evidentiary record and, if necessary, allow the production of new material

The Court specifically rejected the Petitioner's argument that the financial burden of a statutory pre-deposit constitutes a valid ground to bypass the appellate process and invoke writ jurisdiction

The Court answered that the Central GST Authorities are not inherently barred from proceeding under Section 74 simply because State authorities closed a Section 73 inquiry

Consequently, the writ petition and all pending applications were dismissed, relegating the Petitioner to the statutory appellate process to be decided on its own merits