Alternative remedy principle bars writ challenge to an appealable GST refund rejection, while a pending refund claim must be decided promptly.
Where the GST regime provides an efficacious statutory appeal against rejection of a refund claim, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be used to bypass that remedy; the challenge to the first refund rejection was therefore not entertained and the aggrieved party was left to pursue the appellate process. For the second refund application, which remained undecided, the authorities were directed to consider and decide it in accordance with law after hearing the applicant within three weeks. The Delhi HC thus applied the alternative remedy principle to decline interference with the appealable order while requiring expeditious disposal of the pending refund request.
Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable against the order rejecting the first refund claim when a statutory appeal remedy was available. (ii) Whether the authorities should be directed to decide the second pending refund application within a fixed time.
Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable against the order rejecting the first refund claim when a statutory appeal remedy was available.
Analysis: The rejection order in respect of the first refund claim was appealable under the Goods and Services Tax regime. The existence of an effective statutory remedy justified refusal to entertain the writ petition against that order. The Court also noted the settled rule that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised where the enactment provides a redressal mechanism.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained in respect of the rejection order, and the petitioner was left to pursue the appellate remedy.
Issue (ii): Whether the authorities should be directed to decide the second pending refund application within a fixed time.
Analysis: The second refund claim had not yet been decided by the respondents. In these circumstances, a direction for consideration of that application in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing, was warranted.
Conclusion: The respondents were directed to decide the pending refund application within three weeks.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the rejection of the first refund claim was declined on the ground of alternative remedy, while the pending refund claim was required to be decided expeditiously by the authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute provides an efficacious appellate remedy against an adverse order, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked to bypass that remedy.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
