Alternate statutory remedy bars writ relief when the prescribed GST appeal is allowed to lapse through inaction.

A writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original and recovery proceedings was held not maintainable where an efficacious statutory appeal under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was available but had lapsed because the petitioner failed to invoke it within the prescribed limitation period. The Court applied the settled principle that Article 226 relief is ordinarily declined when an alternate statutory remedy exists, especially where the party's own inaction caused the loss of that remedy. As a result, the Court refused discretionary writ interference and left the tax and recovery proceedings undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Maintainability of the writ petition in view of the available statutory appeal under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the delay in invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The petitioner challenged the Order-in-Original and consequential recovery orders, but the statutory scheme provided an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 with a prescribed period of limitation and a limited condonable extension. The petition was filed well beyond that period. In light of the principle that writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be exercised where an alternate efficacious statutory remedy exists, and that a party cannot bypass the statutory machinery by its own default in not availing the appeal remedy within time, interference was not warranted.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction and left the impugned tax and recovery proceedings undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available and has been allowed to lapse by the party's own inaction, the High Court should ordinarily refuse writ relief under Article 226.

---