Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked to Bypass Alternate Statutory Remedies When Jurisdictional Facts Involve Factual Adjudication

The Petitioner, Tata Steel Limited, challenged an Order-In-Original dated 26.12.2025 passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017

The Petitioner admitted the existence of an alternative statutory remedy (appeal) but sought to invoke the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226

The Petitioner contended that the jurisdictional parameters of Section 74 (fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression) were absent and that the proceedings, based on a contested audit report, violated principles of natural justice

The Revenue argued that the Petitioner must exhaust statutory remedies, as the order was passed with due consideration of the Petitioner's response and merits

1. Whether the High Court should entertain the writ petition bypassing the alternative statutory remedy provided under the CGST Act, 2017?

2. Whether the impugned Order-In-Original was passed without jurisdiction or in patent violation of the principles of natural justice?

The Court primarily applied the doctrine of "exhaustion of alternative remedy" as established in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, which permits writ intervention despite alternative remedies only if the action is wholly without jurisdiction, violates natural justice, or challenges the vires of a statute

Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 was the substantive law governing the tax demand

State of Maharashtra v. Greatship (India) Limited, emphasizing that Article 226 is not meant to circumvent statutory procedures

Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent of Taxes, which cautioned that the High Court should not act as a court of appeal to correct errors of fact under Article 226

The Court observed that the Petitioner’s challenge regarding the non-fulfillment of Section 74 ingredients (fraud or suppression) involved disputed questions of fact that require evaluation of evidence—a task best suited for an appellate authority rather than a writ court

The Court rejected the argument of "absolute want of jurisdiction," noting that the proper officer had considered the Petitioner's response and made a determination on merits

Regarding natural justice, the Court found no patent breach since a show-cause notice was issued and the Petitioner’s replies were considered

The Court held that assigning a matter to a "Call Book" is an administrative convenience and its recall does not necessitate a hearing

Consequently, the matter did not fall within the narrow exceptions carved out in Whirlpool

The Court held that the jurisdictional and factual issues raised must be adjudicated by the Appellate Authority

acknowledging the Petitioner’s bona fide pursuit of the writ, the Court granted liberty to file a statutory appeal within four weeks, directing the Appellate Authority to decide the matter on merits without adverting to the issue of limitation