High Court refuses to entertain writ petitions in GST matters where an effective appellate remedy exists:

High Court refuses to entertain writ petitions in GST matters where an effective appellate remedy exists The show cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 pertained to allegations of wrongful utilization of excess ITC from a non-existent firm viz. M/S Advanta Sales, solely for the financial year 2018-2019 amounting to Rs. 42,66,108/-. In response thereto, the petitioner filed a reply before the proper officer dated 10.11.2025 contending inter-alia that for the financial year 2018-2019, the petitioner had not availed any service of manpower supply, and that there arose no question of availment of excess or wrongful ITC. Furthermore, in the personal hearing dated 19.11.2025, the petitioner reiterated that they had only received supplies from M/S Advanta Sales for the financial year 2019-2020, and not for the financial year 2018-2019. Consequently, GST Department issued the impugned corrigendum dated 22.12.2025 stating that the assessment period in the impugned show cause notice may be read as 2018-2019 and 2019-2020. Issue Involved In This Case Whether the tax department's use of a corrigendum to include a new financial year after the legal deadline constitutes an invalid, time-barred proceeding that justifies the High Court's direct intervention despite available alternative appeals. Decision Of The Court The High Court dismissed the petition because the law already provides a standard way to solve this problem: a formal appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The judges explained that they typically will not step in using their special "writ" powers if a person hasn’t tried the regular legal channels first, unless there is a major issue like a violation of fundamental rights or a lack of legal authority. Since deciding whether the government’s correction was legal would require a detailed look at the facts and evidence, the court decided it was better suited for an appellate authority to handle. Ultimately, the court did not take a side on the tax dispute itself but gave the petitioner permission to go through the proper appeal process instead.