HC Refuses to Entertain GST Writ, Directs Bajaj Auto to Avail Statutory Appeal

The petitioner challenged an adjudication order passed under Section 73(9) of the GST Act for FY 2021–22, which stemmed from an audit conducted under Section 65. The dispute arose after a show cause notice alleged short payment of tax on certain spare parts manufactured by the petitioner. The adjudicating authority held that the goods were incorrectly classified and should fall under HSN Code 8714, attracting GST at 28% instead of 18%, leading to a differential tax demand.

Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that its reply had not been properly examined and sought a remand for fresh adjudication. It also contended that the requirement of mandatory pre-deposit for filing an appeal made the alternative remedy burdensome, thereby justifying invocation of writ jurisdiction.

Issue Raised: Whether a writ petition is maintainable against a GST adjudication order when a statutory appellate remedy exists, especially where pre-deposit is required.

HC Decided: The High Court refused to entertain the writ petition and declined to go into the merits of the case. It reaffirmed that when an effective alternative remedy is available under Section 107 of the GST Act, writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be invoked. The Court made it clear that the requirement of pre-deposit does not make the appellate remedy ineffective or illusory. It further observed that all arguments, including reliance on favourable rulings from other jurisdictions, can be raised before the appellate authority.

Thus, the petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal. The appellate authority was directed to consider the matter independently, without being influenced by any observations made by the Court.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below