Alternative statutory remedy bars writ interference, with 20% pre-deposit required before GST appeal can proceed.

A writ challenge to a GST demand order was declined because notice, reply and personal hearing had preceded the order, and an efficacious statutory appellate remedy remained available. Owing to the delay in approaching the Court and the availability of appeal, the HC refused writ interference and relegated the petitioner to the appellate forum. The petitioner was directed to deposit 20% of the tax confirmed in the order within the stipulated time, and the appellate authority was instructed to decide the appeal on merits without reference to limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the GST demand order should be entertained or the petitioner should be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy with a condition of pre-deposit.

Analysis: The impugned order was preceded by notice, reply, and personal hearing. In view of the delay in approaching the Court and the availability of the appellate remedy, the Court declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction and directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal. The petitioner was required to deposit 20% of the tax confirmed in the impugned order within the stipulated time, and the appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal on merits without reference to limitation.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and the petitioner was relegated to the appellate remedy with the stipulated pre-deposit condition.

---