Alternate remedy under GST bars writ relief where statutory appeal to the Tribunal remains available and competent

Where an efficacious statutory appeal lies under the GST regime, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 will ordinarily not be exercised unless an exceptional case is shown. The Court held that the impugned order was appealable to the Appellate Tribunal under the CGST Act and Rules, and that the petitioner had not established any basis to bypass that remedy. The Tribunal was considered competent to examine the merits, including revenue neutrality, and the petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appeal after complying with the pre-deposit requirement.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory appeal remedy under the GST regime and whether the petitioner should be relegated to the Appellate Tribunal after complying with the pre-deposit requirement.

Analysis: The Court noted that an appeal against the impugned order lay under Section 112(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 110 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 before the Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 109 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It held that where an alternate efficacious statutory remedy exists, exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not warranted unless an exceptional case is made out. The petitioner did not establish such a case, and the Tribunal was held competent to consider the issues urged, including revenue neutrality, on merits.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and the petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appeal before the Appellate Tribunal after complying with the pre-deposit requirement.

---