GST refund claims must follow the statutory remedy, and writ jurisdiction cannot bypass the prescribed mechanism.

A writ petition seeking GST refund was not maintainable because the GST framework provides a specific statutory refund mechanism. The petitioner was directed to pursue the claim under the refund procedure in the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, including recourse to the competent authority under section 54. The court noted that any further grievance could be taken through the available dispute resolution process, including before the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran. Writ jurisdiction could not be used to bypass an efficacious statutory remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition seeking refund of GST was maintainable in view of the statutory refund remedy under the GST framework.

Analysis: The petition concerned refund of tax allegedly deducted from running bills after the GST regime came into force. The refund procedure under Chapter XI of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Chapter X of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 provides the statutory mechanism for such a claim. The petitioner was directed to pursue refund before the competent authority under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court also noted that, if aggrieved, the petitioner could pursue the dispute resolution mechanism available before the competent authority and thereafter before the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable because an efficacious statutory remedy was available to the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The challenge was left to be pursued before the appropriate statutory forum for refund and dispute resolution, and the writ court declined to entertain it.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the GST law provides a specific refund procedure and an efficacious statutory remedy exists, the writ jurisdiction should not be invoked to bypass that mechanism.

---