Alternative statutory remedy barred writ intervention in GST appellate disputes involving factual and legal appreciation.

A writ petition challenging three appellate GST orders was found not maintainable because an efficacious statutory appeal lay to the Tribunal. The Court held that the grievance, including the dispute over insistence on a notarized sale agreement, involved factual and legal appreciation better suited to the appellate forum. The availability of an alternative statutory remedy weighed against invoking writ jurisdiction, and alleged breach of natural justice did not justify bypassing that remedy on the facts presented. The writ petition was therefore not entertained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging three appellate orders was maintainable in view of the availability of an efficacious statutory appeal, and whether the alleged violation of natural justice justified invocation of writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The petition challenged three separate appellate orders arising from different tax periods. The Court noted that the petitioners had a statutory remedy of appeal before the Tribunal under the GST regime. The grievance regarding insistence on a notarized sale agreement involved factual and legal appreciation, which could appropriately be examined in the statutory appellate forum. The existence of an efficacious alternative remedy weighed against entertainment of the writ petition.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and was rejected.

---