Alternative statutory remedy under GST bars writ intervention, while preserving liberty to file the appeal within limitation.

Where GST scrutiny leads to a demand order, writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 should ordinarily not be invoked if an efficacious statutory appeal is available. The Court reiterated that the existence of a specific appellate remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act is a strong reason to decline writ intervention unless exceptional circumstances are shown. The writ petition was therefore not entertained, and the petitioner was given liberty to file a statutory appeal within seven days, to be treated as filed within limitation subject to compliance with the Act.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the GST demand order was maintainable in view of the availability of an efficacious statutory appeal under the GST law.

Analysis: The impugned demand arose out of GST scrutiny proceedings. The Court reiterated that where a statute provides a specific remedy, the High Court should ordinarily refrain from exercising writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. As the petitioner had an alternative appellate remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, and no exceptional circumstance was shown to justify bypassing that remedy, the writ petition was not entertained. At the same time, since the approach to the Court was within the stipulated period, liberty was granted to file an appeal within seven days, to be treated as filed within limitation subject to statutory compliance.

Conclusion: The writ petition was declined on the ground of availability of an efficacious alternative remedy, with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.

---