Alternate statutory remedy bars writ review where appeal under GST law is available against adjudication order.

A writ petition challenging a show cause notice and order-in-original was not entertained because an efficacious statutory appeal was available under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act. The Court declined to examine the alleged denial of cross-examination, holding that the petitioners could raise all factual and legal grounds before the appellate authority. The ruling applies the ordinary rule that writ jurisdiction will not be exercised to bypass an available alternate statutory remedy, leaving the adjudication to be tested in appeal rather than in writ proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the petitioners' statutory alternative remedy of appeal against the adjudication order.

Analysis: The petition challenged both the show cause notice and the order-in-original. The only substantive ground noticed was the alleged denial of cross-examination, but the Court did not enter into that complaint because the petitioners had a statutory appellate remedy under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act. In these circumstances, the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and left the petitioners free to agitate all factual and legal grounds before the appellate authority.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and was dismissed because an efficacious statutory appeal was available.

Final Conclusion: The decision leaves the impugned adjudication to be tested in appeal rather than in writ proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory appeal is available against an adjudication order, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be exercised to bypass that alternate remedy.

---