Writ petition challenging GST orders is not maintainable where an efficacious alternative remedy before the GST Tribunal exists.

The petitioner, a construction firm, was investigated in 2020 for allegedly passing irregular input tax credit without actual supply.

Respondent No. 2 issued a show-cause notice on 26.07.2024, leading to an Order-in-Original dated 03.10.2024, which imposed penalties under Section 122 of the CGST Act and Section 20 of the IGST Act.

The petitioner’s subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 21.10.2025 on grounds of limitation.

The petitioner challenged these orders via writ petition, arguing that the issuing officer lacked jurisdiction and seeking a declaration that pre-deposit requirements under Section 112 cannot apply retrospectively.

1. Whether the Impugned Show Cause Notice and Order-in-Original were issued by a "proper officer" having valid jurisdiction

2. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition under Article 226 when an alternative statutory remedy exists before the GST Tribunal

3. Whether the mandatory pre-deposit provision under Section 112 of the CGST Act can be bypassed by invoking writ jurisdiction

Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, specifically Section 107 (Appeals to Appellate Authority), Section 112 (Appeals to Appellate Tribunal), and Section 122 (Penalties).

Circular No. 31/05/2018-GST regarding the assignment of functions to "proper officers".

Principle of exhaustion of alternative remedies, noting that under Article 226 of the Constitution, discretionary jurisdiction should not be exercised when a specialized statutory Tribunal (comprising judicial and technical members) is available to adjudicate factual and technical disputes.

The GST Tribunal is now functional, with Presiding Officers appointed and a 30-day window provided by the Central Government for filing appeals.

The petitioner’s challenges—specifically regarding the jurisdiction of the "proper officer" and alleged violations of natural justice—were deemed "disputed questions of fact" better suited for the Tribunal's expertise.

Regarding the challenge to the pre-deposit requirement, the court reasoned that allowing a writ petition solely to avoid such a statutory condition would undermine the legislative intent of creating a specialized Tribunal.

The court emphasized that if the High Court entertained every GST matter, the purpose of constituting a Tribunal with expert members would be frustrated.

The writ petition was dismissed, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the GST Tribunal to redress its grievances.