Exhaustion of statutory remedies under GST bars writ jurisdiction where the tribunal can decide natural justice and pre-deposit disputes.

A writ petition challenging an appellate GST order was not entertained because an efficacious statutory remedy remained available before the GST Appellate Tribunal. The Court noted that objections based on alleged violation of natural justice, rejection of the appeal, and whether the pre-deposit requirement was satisfied involved factual and legal questions that the Tribunal could examine. Applying the rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies, the Court declined to invoke its discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory forum.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the appellate order was maintainable in view of the alternative statutory remedy under the GST enactment.

Analysis: The challenge related to alleged violation of natural justice, the validity of the rejection of appeal, and the question whether the requisite pre-deposit had been made. The Court held that these matters could be examined by the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, including the factual controversy regarding notice and deposit. Since the statute provides an efficacious forum capable of deciding both facts and law, the Court applied the rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies and declined to invoke discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and the petitioner was left to pursue the statutory remedy before the appropriate forum.

---