Statutory appellate remedy bars writ jurisdiction where the appeal remains available under the preserved Finance Act framework.

An efficacious statutory appellate remedy under the Finance Act, 1994 barred invocation of writ jurisdiction, because the impugned order was appealable and the repeal-and-savings clause preserved the pending and available appeal mechanism. The appellate route under Sections 85 and 86 remained open before the CESTAT, which was functional and entertaining such appeals. The writ court therefore declined to intervene and left the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, and whether the repeal and savings clause under the GST regime displaced that remedy.

Analysis: The impugned order was an appealable order. The statutory scheme preserved pending and available proceedings by virtue of the repeal and savings clause, and the appellate route under Sections 85 and 86 of the Finance Act, 1994 continued to be available before the CESTAT, which was functional and entertaining such appeals. In these circumstances, the writ jurisdiction was not to be invoked when an efficacious alternate remedy existed.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertainable and was rejected, leaving the petitioner to avail the statutory appeal remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be entertained, and the existence of a repeal and savings clause does not extinguish the appellate remedy preserved by the statute.

---