Statutory appellate remedy prevails over writ jurisdiction where an efficacious appeal is available against a penalty order.

Where a statutory appellate authority has been constituted and an efficacious appeal is available against a penalty order, writ jurisdiction need not be exercised to examine the challenge on merits. The High Court noted that the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) had been appointed as the appellate authority under the Punjab GST framework, so the petitioners were relegated to the statutory appellate remedy. The court also protected the litigants on limitation by directing that appeals filed within 30 days of receipt of a certified copy of the order should not be rejected as time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging the penalty order were liable to be disposed of by relegating the petitioners to the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: A notification had appointed the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) to act as the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Rule 109A of the Punjab Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017. In that view, the Court found that the petitioners had an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal and that the writ petitions need not be entertained on merits. The Court also protected the petitioners by directing that appeals filed within 30 days from receipt of a certified copy of the order should not be dismissed on limitation.

Conclusion: The petitioners were relegated to the appellate remedy under the Act and the writ petitions were disposed of accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory appellate authority has been constituted and an efficacious appeal lies, writ jurisdiction need not be invoked to challenge the order and the party may be relegated to the statutory remedy.

---