Statutory GST appeal bars writ intervention, but territorial jurisdiction survives where part of the cause of action arises locally.

Writ jurisdiction should not be used to bypass an efficacious statutory appeal under GST, especially where the grievance, including denial of cross-examination, can be examined by the appellate authority and no exceptional ground such as complete lack of jurisdiction is shown; the petitions were therefore not maintainable on that ground and the petitioners were relegated to the appellate remedy. Territorial jurisdiction was nevertheless sustained because the petitioners carried on business at Indore and the search and connected transactions had material links there, so part of the cause of action arose within the Court's jurisdiction despite the adjudicating authority being at Bhopal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions were maintainable despite the availability of an efficacious statutory appeal under the GST law; (ii) Whether the High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions were maintainable despite the availability of an efficacious statutory appeal under the GST law.

Analysis: The petitions challenged orders in original passed in GST proceedings and the grievance of denial of cross-examination was treated as a matter that could be examined by the appellate authority on the record and on the question of prejudice. The Court held that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked to bypass the statutory appellate remedy, particularly where no case of complete lack of jurisdiction was made out and the dispute did not warrant avoidance of the statutory pre-deposit scheme.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable on this ground and the petitioners were required to pursue the statutory appeal.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions.

Analysis: The Court noted that the petitioners carried on business at Indore and the search and connected transactions had material links with Indore. Applying the principle that even a part of the cause of action is sufficient, and bearing in mind forum conveniens, the mere fact that the adjudicating authority was stationed at Bhopal did not oust jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the adjudication orders failed because the petitioners were relegated to the statutory appellate remedy, though the forum was held to have jurisdiction to entertain the petitions.

Ratio Decidendi: When an efficacious statutory appeal is available, writ jurisdiction should not be used to bypass the appellate remedy unless exceptional grounds are shown, and territorial jurisdiction may be sustained where a part of the cause of action arises within the Court's jurisdiction.

---