Alternative statutory remedy bars writ challenge where notice service and personal hearing objections can be decided on appeal.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be invoked where an effective statutory appeal is available, even if the petitioner alleges non-service of notice and denial of personal hearing. The appellate forum can examine both facts and law, including the mode of service, compliance with prescribed communication requirements, and the hearing grievance. On that basis, the writ petition was held not maintainable at this stage, and the petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the efficacious statutory appellate remedy, notwithstanding the challenge to the alleged non-service of notice and denial of personal hearing.

Analysis: The dispute arose from an order passed under the GST law, and an appeal lay under the statutory appellate provision. The appellate forum was to examine both facts and law, including the manner of service of notice, compliance with the prescribed mode of communication, and the grievance of denial of personal hearing. The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and is ordinarily not exercised where an effective alternative remedy is available, unless exceptional grounds are clearly made out.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable at this stage and the petitioner was required to avail the statutory appellate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an effective statutory appeal is available and the appellate authority can adjudicate objections relating to service of notice and personal hearing, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked.

---