Availability of statutory appellate remedy bars writ jurisdiction where the appellate forum can review the adjudicatory record, so writ dismissed.

Whether a writ under Article 226 is maintainable when an efficacious statutory appeal exists was addressed: the court held that the petitioner's grievances - non-supply of documents, service and dates of summons, non-consideration of replies, and reproduction of show-cause notice - fall within the scope of the statutory appellate forum, and therefore the writ jurisdiction should be abstained from in favour of the statutory remedy. Operative effect: the writ was held not maintainable and dismissed, with the available appellate remedy under the Central Goods and Services Tax law indicated as the appropriate forum.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable notwithstanding the availability of an efficacious statutory alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 109A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.

Analysis: An effective statutory appellate remedy was available to the petitioner in the form of an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 109A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The grievances raised-alleged non-supply of relied upon documents, service and service dates of summons, alleged non-consideration of the petitioner s reply, and alleged reproduction of the show cause notice in the order-in-original-require examination of the adjudicatory record and fall within the scope of the appellate forum. The settled exception to the rule of abstention from exercising writ jurisdiction was not established on the facts presented so as to justify bypassing the statutory appeal remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petition is not maintainable and is dismissed; the decision is in favour of Revenue.

---