Writ jurisdiction and alternate statutory remedy bar challenge to tax adjudication when appeal under the SGST Act is available.

A writ petition challenging a tax adjudication order was not maintainable where an efficacious statutory appeal existed under the SGST Act. The Court applied the settled rule that Article 226 jurisdiction should ordinarily not be used to bypass the appellate mechanism against an order-in-original passed on merits, and rejected the contention that pre-deposit requirements justified resort to writ remedy. The petitioner was relegated to the statutory appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the order-in-original and demand could be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an efficacious statutory appeal under the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was available.

Analysis: The petitioner had already replied to the show-cause notice and the adjudicating authority had passed the order-in-original on merits. The availability of a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 constituted an efficacious alternate remedy. The fact that appeal required deposit of a portion of the demand was not accepted as a ground to bypass the appellate mechanism. Reliance was placed on the settled principle that writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked to challenge an assessment or adjudication order when the statute provides a remedy of appeal.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in view of the alternate statutory remedy, and the petitioner was relegated to the appellate remedy.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the tax adjudication was declined at the writ stage, leaving the petitioner to pursue the remedy of appeal under the statute.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available against a tax adjudication order, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be exercised to bypass that remedy.

---