Alternative statutory remedy under GST barred writ intervention, leaving classification dispute to the appellate forum.

A writ petition challenging a GST appellate order on classification was not entertained because an efficacious statutory appeal was available under the GST framework. Applying the settled rule that Article 226 jurisdiction is ordinarily not invoked when an effective alternative remedy exists, the HC held that the dispute should be pursued before the statutory appellate forum under Section 112. The matter was therefore left to the fact-finding and appellate mechanism created by the statute, and the writ petition was dismissed for availability of an alternative remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition could be entertained when an efficacious statutory appellate remedy was available under the GST regime.

Analysis: The petitioner sought interference with the appellate order concerning classification of the supply, but the Court found that the dispute ought to be pursued before the statutory forum under Section 112 of the GST law. Relying on the settled principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not exercised when an effective alternative remedy exists, the Court held that the question raised was better left to the fact-finding and appellate mechanism created by the statute.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and was dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

---