Maintainability of petition and availability of alternate remedy by appeal against the order dated 26 June 2024; collateral challenge deferred.

Challenge to an order under the CGST/MGST framework is directed to be pursued by way of the alternate remedy of an appeal against the order dated 26 June 2024; appellants may raise all merits-based grounds in that appeal, and if the appeal succeeds there may be no occasion to challenge the impugned notifications, whereas if the appeal fails they are granted liberty to challenge those notifications. The procedural directive effectively prioritises exhaustion of the statutory appellate remedy before permitting collateral challenges to subordinate notifications.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition challenging the order dated 26 June 2024 should be relegated to the alternate remedy of an appeal; (ii) Whether the Appellate Authority should be directed to entertain the appeal on merits without taking objection to limitation, subject to compliance with prescribed formalities including pre-deposit.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition should be relegated to an appeal against the order dated 26 June 2024.

Analysis: The Court examined the petitioners' challenge to the impugned order and noted that substantive grounds on merits can be raised before the Appellate Authority. The Court considered the availability of the statutory appellate remedy under the CGST framework and the appropriateness of exercising writ jurisdiction when an efficacious appellate remedy exists.

Conclusion: The petition is relegated to the alternate remedy of an appeal; the petitioners are directed to file an appeal against the order dated 26 June 2024 if they so desire.

Issue (ii): Whether the Appellate Authority should be requested to entertain the appeal on merits without raising the issue of limitation, provided the appeal is filed within the stipulated time and after completing prescribed formalities including pre-deposit.

Analysis: The Court recorded that the petition was instituted within the period of limitation for filing an appeal and that the petitioners had bona fide pursued the matter. Considering these facts, the Court exercised its supervisory discretion to grant limited relief by permitting the appeal to be entertained on merits if filed within the time directed and after complying with legal formalities.

Conclusion: The Appellate Authority is requested to entertain the appeal on merits and in accordance with law but without adverting to the issue of limitation, provided the appeal is filed within six weeks and statutory formalities including pre-deposit are complied with.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition is disposed of by relegating the petitioners to file an appeal within six weeks with liberty that the Appellate Authority will hear the appeal on merits without raising limitation, and the petitioners retain liberty to challenge the notifications if the appeal fails.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appellate remedy exists and the petitioners have bona fide pursued relief within the limitation period, the Court may relegated the matter to appeal and, in appropriate circumstances, direct the Appellate Authority to entertain the appeal on merits without raising limitation subject to compliance with prescribed formalities.

---