Writ jurisdiction declined where compensation cess dispute turned on factual issues and statutory GST appeal remained available.

Contested questions of fact, including the nature of the product and the need for sample testing, were treated as matters better resolved by the statutory authorities rather than in writ jurisdiction. The availability of an appellate remedy under the GST framework, together with the fact that the writ was filed within the appeal limitation period, supported relegating the petitioner to that remedy. Liberty was preserved to seek sample testing before the appellate authority, and the writ petition was disposed of without adjudication on the merits of the compensation cess demand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be entertained on the merits of the demand for compensation cess, and whether the petitioner should be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: The dispute involved contested questions of fact, including the nature of the product and the need for testing of samples, which were held to be matters better suited for determination by the statutory authorities. The availability of an appeal under the GST framework and the filing of the writ petition within the appeal limitation period supported relegating the petitioner to that remedy. Liberty was also preserved to seek testing of samples before the appellate authority.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of without adjudication on the merits, with liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act within the time granted by the Court.

---