Writ petition is not maintainable to bypass statutory pre-deposit requirements of an appeal despite alleged natural justice violations.

The petitioner, a registered taxpayer, was audited under a "Scrutiny Campaign" for F.Y. 2021-22 and 2022-23.

Discrepancies were found between TDS credits and reported turnover in GSTR-1/3B totaling over ₹2.23 Crores.

Notices under Section 61 of the GST Act (GST ASMT-10) were issued on 03.06.2024, followed by show cause notices under Section 73 on 13.08.2024.

The petitioner failed to reply to any notices.

Consequently, the Proper Officer passed demand orders on 08.10.2024 totaling approximately ₹52 Lakhs in tax, interest, and penalties.

The petitioner challenged these orders via writ petition, claiming a violation of natural justice due to hospitalization between 12.09.2024 and 16.09.2024, which allegedly prevented his participation.

1. Whether a writ petition is maintainable when the petitioner has failed to utilize available statutory remedies and failed to respond to multiple pre-adjudication notices.

2. Whether the failure to grant a personal hearing constitutes a violation of natural justice if the assessee never filed a reply to the show cause notice.

The Court applied Section 61 and Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, which govern the scrutiny of returns and the determination of tax not paid or short paid.

It also referenced Section 169(1)(d), regarding the service of notice via the common portal.

Regarding procedural fairness, the Court held that the right to a personal hearing under the GST framework is tethered to the filing of a response.

Furthermore, it emphasized the established principle that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised to bypass mandatory statutory pre-deposits (10% of the disputed tax) required for appeals under the Act.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s plea of natural justice violation, noting that the petitioner remained silent through multiple stages: the initial Section 61 notices and the subsequent Section 73 show cause notices.

The Court reasoned that the opportunity for a personal hearing arises after a reply is submitted; since no reply was filed, the petitioner could not complain of being denied a hearing.

Regarding the petitioner's argument that the demand arose from a "clerical mistake" in GSTR-1 (reporting B2B sales as B2C), the Court found these to be factual merits that must be adjudicated by the Appellate Authority rather than a writ court.

The Court observed that the petitioner approached the High Court only after the limitation for a statutory appeal had expired and specifically to circumvent the mandatory 10% pre-deposit.

The Court declined to entertain the petition on merits, ruling that the proper forum for factual disputes is the Appellate Authority.

The writ petition was dismissed, with the Court clarifying that writ jurisdiction cannot be used as a tool to avoid statutory pre-conditions for filing an appeal.