Efficacious statutory appeal bars writ challenge where GST adjudication can be tested in appeal despite pre-deposit requirement.

An efficacious statutory appeal under GST barred writ interference against an adjudication order on classification of spare parts and the resulting tax demand. The High Court held that the mere requirement of pre-deposit for filing the appeal was not, by itself, a sufficient ground to bypass the alternative remedy. Grievances about non-consideration of the reply and the factual or legal merits of the classification dispute were left to be examined in appeal. The writ petition was not entertained on merits, and the petitioner was relegated to the appellate remedy with all contentions reserved.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be entertained against the adjudication order when a statutory appeal under the GST law was available, and whether the requirement of pre-deposit justified bypassing that remedy.

Analysis: The adjudication order had determined the classification of spare parts and raised differential tax demand under the GST framework. Since an appellate remedy was expressly available, the existence of a pre-deposit condition did not by itself justify invocation of writ jurisdiction. The grievance regarding non-consideration of the reply and the factual or legal merits of the classification dispute were left open to be examined in appeal.

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

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the adjudication order was not adjudicated in writ jurisdiction, and the petitioner was left free to pursue the appeal with all contentions reserved.

Ratio Decidendi: The mere requirement of pre-deposit for filing a statutory appeal is not a sufficient ground to bypass an efficacious alternative remedy.

---