Statutory alternative remedy under GST barred writ challenge to audit, notice and demand order; petition sent to appeal.

Where a statutory appeal is available against a GST demand order, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be invoked to bypass that remedy. The petitioner had participated in the audit and proceedings, and the challenge to the audit report, show cause notice and consequential demand order was held to be fit for consideration before the appellate authority under the GST statute. The writ petition was not entertained, and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy without adjudication on the merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the audit report, show cause notice and demand order under the GST regime was maintainable in view of the available statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: The petitioner had participated in the audit and proceedings and a final demand order was thereafter passed under the GST law. The challenge was directed against the audit report, show cause notice and the consequential demand order, but the Court found that the grievance could be pursued before the appellate authority under the statute. In these circumstances, the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy weighed against invocation of Article 226 jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the GST demand order was left to be pursued in the statutory hierarchy, and the writ proceedings were dismissed without adjudication on the merits of the tax dispute.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory appeal is available against a GST assessment or demand order, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked to bypass that remedy.

---