Alternative remedy doctrine requires pursuit of the statutory appeal; appellate authority may condone delay and address limitation issues.

The primary issue was whether a High Court should have declined a writ petition because an alternate statutory remedy existed; the Court applied the alternative remedy principle, noting that availability of an appeal under the statutory scheme requires resort to that remedy and that the appellate authority can consider and condone limitation objections. The Supreme Court recorded that the petitioner had the statutory appeal available and that limitation-related contentions could be addressed by the appellate forum; no view was taken on the substantive merits and the writ petition was disposed as rightly refused by the High Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court erred in declining to entertain the writ petition on the ground that an alternative remedy of filing a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act exists.

Analysis: The High Court declined jurisdiction because an alternative statutory remedy in the form of an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act was available to the petitioner. The Supreme Court noted that the petitioner had a remedy by way of statutory appeal and observed that the appellate authority has the power to condone delay where limitation issues arise; the Court advised that any limitation-related contention may be considered by the appellate authority in view of the petitioner having pursued remedy before the Supreme Court. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the underlying dispute.

Conclusion: The High Court did not err in refusing to entertain the writ petition; the petition is disposed of.

---