JUDGMENT

Devan Ramachandran, J The appellant challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.34163 of 2025 because the said writ petition was refused to be admitted or considered on the ground that there is an alternative, efficacious and statutory remedy.

2. Smt.K.Krishna – the learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the findings and holdings of the learned Single Judge are in error because it has been omitted to be noticed that, even as per Ext.P10 order, there is not even a mention of any imperative and statutory notice having been issued prior to the show cause notice, as required under Section 142(1)(a) of the GST Act. She contented that, when the most imperative statutory requirements have been violated, the impugned order can only be construed to be null and void; and consequently that a writ petition before this Court is maintainable.

3. Sri.Alan Priyadarshi Dev – the learned Government Pleader submitted that the contention of the appellant, that a notice prior to the show cause notice under Section 142(1)(a) had not been issued is not factually true; and if he had invoked his statutory remedy, the Authorities would have established to the contrary. H