Statutory alternate remedy bars writ interference, while time spent in bona fide writ proceedings may be excluded for appeal

An efficacious statutory appellate remedy under the GST law barred writ interference, so the grievance regarding non-uploading of the order and alleged non-compliance with the departmental circular was left to be pursued before the appellate forum. The Court declined to entertain the writ petition on merits because the proper course was to invoke the alternate remedy. At the same time, it protected the petitioner from limitation prejudice by directing exclusion of the period spent prosecuting the writ petition while pursuing the statutory appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be entertained despite the availability of a statutory appeal, and whether the petitioner was entitled to exclusion of the time spent in prosecuting the writ petition.

Analysis: An efficacious statutory remedy of appeal was available against the impugned order under the GST enactment. The Court held that the grievance about non-uploading of the order and alleged non-compliance with the departmental circular did not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction, since the proper course was to avail the statutory appellate remedy. At the same time, the Court protected the petitioner by directing exclusion of the period spent before the writ court while pursuing the alternate remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits and the petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appeal, with the benefit of exclusion of time spent in the writ proceeding.

Final Conclusion: The dispute was left to be agitated before the statutory appellate forum, and the petitioner was safeguarded against limitation consequences for the period spent in the writ petition.

Ratio Decidendi: When an efficacious statutory appellate remedy is available, writ interference is unwarranted, though the time bona fide spent in the writ proceeding may be excluded for the purpose of pursuing that remedy.

---