Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 requires utmost expedition; unexplained delay and alternate remedy bar discretionary relief.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was declined where an equally efficacious statutory appeal remedy existed and the petitioner delayed invoking it; the court applied the principle that discretionary writ relief requires utmost expedition and ordinarily will not be granted when delay or self induced inability to use the alternate remedy is unexplained, and found no satisfactory cause for the belated challenge. The court also rejected a natural justice complaint, holding that show cause notices and hearing opportunities were on record and the petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice or any substantive defence warranting relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether this Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain a belated challenge to the adjudication order dated 07.04.2022 where an alternate statutory appeal remedy was available and the petitioner delayed institution of proceedings; (ii) Whether the adjudication order dated 07.04.2022 was vitiated by breach of principles of natural justice because no notice of hearing was given.

Issue (i): Whether to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction despite delay and availability of alternate remedy.

Analysis: The Court examined the chronology showing the adjudication order dated 07.04.2022, the cancellation of GST registration effective 31.03.2022 and cancelled by order on 29.05.2022, and the restoration on 04.07.2023. The petition was filed on 26.07.2023. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court authorities establishing that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary, should be invoked with utmost expedition and ordinarily not exercised where an equally efficacious alternate statutory remedy exists; delay or self-induced inability to avail the statutory remedy ordinarily disentitles the petitioner to discretionary relief. The Court found no satisfactory explanation that registration cancellation prevented timely exercise of the statutory appeal remedy, and noted absence of substantive defence on merits.

Conclusion: The Court declined to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain the belated challenge; the petition is dismissed on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the adjudication order is vitiated for want of notice/hearing (breach of natural justice).

Analysis: The petitioner alleged the order was ex parte and not served. The record showed show cause notices were issued and opportunities afforded; no adequate explanation was given for failure to avail those opportunities, and no substantive merits or defence were presented to demonstrate prejudice from any alleged lack of notice.

Conclusion: The claim of breach of principles of natural justice is rejected; no relief is granted on this ground.

Final Conclusion: Considering the availability of alternate statutory remedies, the petitioner's delay and lack of adequate cause for non-availment of those remedies, and absence of a convincing natural justice violation or defence on merits, the writ petition is dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an aggrieved party has an equally efficacious statutory appeal remedy and has not availed it within the prescribed period due to its own delay or fault, a High Court will ordinarily refuse to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226; invocation of writ jurisdiction must be with utmost expedition and within a reasonable period determined by the facts.

---