Alternate statutory remedy bars writ interference where the challenge turns on disputed facts and no exceptional ground is shown.

Article 226 writ jurisdiction is ordinarily declined where the CGST framework provides an efficacious statutory appeal, and the recognised exceptions remain limited to breach of fundamental rights, natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or challenge to vires. A challenge to a corrigendum and the impugned order that requires scrutiny of the correction, the record, and disputed facts falls outside the narrow scope of certiorari review. As the statutory scheme permits an appeal against the adjudicating order, the writ petition was held not maintainable and the petitioner was left to pursue the appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the efficacious statutory appellate remedy under the CGST framework.

Analysis: The writ court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not exercised where an adequate alternate remedy exists. The recognised exceptions are limited to breach of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or challenge to vires. The challenge to the corrigendum and the impugned order would require examination of the nature of the correction, the material on record, and disputed factual questions, which fall outside the limited scope of certiorari review. The statutory scheme itself provides an appeal against the adjudicating order, and the availability of that remedy weighs against interference in writ proceedings.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed, leaving the petitioner to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available, the writ court will ordinarily decline interference under Article 226, especially when the challenge turns on factual appraisal rather than a patent jurisdictional error.

---