Alternate remedy under CGST bars writ intervention; statutory appeal permitted with merits to be considered.

Writ jurisdiction was declined where an appellate remedy under the CGST regime was available, as the controversy involved issues better examined by the appellate forum and no exceptional ground justified departure from the rule of exhaustion of alternate remedies. The petitioner was left at liberty to file the statutory appeal within the stipulated time, and the appellate authority was directed to decide it on merits without raising limitation, with all contentions kept open.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be entertained despite the availability of an appellate remedy under the CGST regime.

Analysis: The petition challenged an order in original on the ground that parallel proceedings had already been initiated by the State authorities. The Court found that the controversy involved intricate questions better examined by the appellate forum and that no exceptional case was made out to depart from the settled practice of insisting upon exhaustion of alternate remedies. Liberty was granted to file an appeal within the stipulated time, with the appellate authority directed to consider it on merits and without raising limitation, while all contentions were kept open.

Outcome: The writ petition was not entertained and was disposed of with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.

---