Writ remedy barred by alternative GST appellate forum where challenge turned on disputed facts and notice sufficiency.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was declined because the GST demand challenge involved disputed questions of fact and an effective statutory appellate remedy was available. The petitioner's claim that no valid show-cause notice preceded the demand was assessed against the annexed notice, and the Court held that the alleged discrepancy required factual examination by the adjudicating and appellate forums under the GST framework. Applying the settled rule of non-interference where an efficacious alternative remedy exists, the writ petition was held not maintainable and the challenge was left to be pursued before the statutory forum.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the GST demand order was maintainable in view of the availability of an efficacious statutory alternative remedy and the presence of disputed questions of fact.

Analysis: The impugned order arose from proceedings under the GST enactments and the petitioner's grievance was that no valid show cause notice had preceded the final demand. The authority's notice annexure, however, disclosed the alleged discrepancy and the Court found that the objection turned on factual appreciation of the records and the sufficiency of the material placed before the adjudicating authority. Such matters were held to be amenable to examination by the statutory appellate mechanism under the GST framework. Applying the settled rule that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not exercised when an effective alternative remedy exists, especially where factual controversies can be examined by the specialist forums, the Court declined to entertain the petition.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the challenge was left to be pursued before the statutory forum.

---