Alternative statutory remedy bars writ interference with an order-in-original; liberty reserved to challenge limitation-extending notifications later.

A writ challenge to an order-in-original and notifications extending limitation was declined because an alternative statutory appeal was available. The HC followed the settled rule of relegating the party to the appellate remedy rather than entertaining writ interference at the first instance. Liberty was reserved to pursue the appeal and, if no relief was obtained, to challenge the limitation-extending notifications thereafter. The merits of the IGST-related controversy were left open.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the order-in-original and the notifications extending limitation should be entertained when an alternative appellate remedy was available, and whether liberty should be reserved to challenge the notifications after pursuing such remedy.

Analysis: The petition raised challenges both to the order-in-original and to notifications extending the time for passing the final order. The availability of an appeal against the order-in-original, coupled with the settled approach of relegating the party to statutory remedies, led to refusal of writ interference. Liberty was reserved to pursue the appellate remedy and, if no relief were obtained there, to assail the notifications. The merits of the controversy, including the IGST challenge, were left open.

Outcome: The writ petition was not entertained and the petitioner was relegated to the alternate statutory remedy of appeal, with liberty preserved to challenge the notifications if the statutory remedy did not yield relief.

---