Alternative statutory remedy bars writ jurisdiction where GST appellate tribunal can test Rule 89(5) circulars and notifications.

Circulars issued by the tax administration reflect only the executive's understanding of the statute and cannot prevail over law declared by courts. The Appellate Tribunal is competent to examine both factual disputes and questions of law arising from the appellate order, including the effect of Rule 89(5) of the GST Rules and the relevant circulars and notifications. Where an efficacious statutory remedy under the GST Act is available, extraordinary writ jurisdiction should not be invoked. On that basis, the writ petition was held not maintainable and was declined for alternative statutory remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the appellate order was maintainable in view of the statutory appeal provided under the GST Act, and whether the Appellate Tribunal was competent to consider the legal effect of the circulars and notifications relating to Rule 89(5) of the GST Rules.

Analysis: The Court held that circulars issued by the tax administration represent only the executive's understanding of the statute and cannot prevail over the law declared by courts. It further held that the Appellate Tribunal is competent to examine both factual disputes and questions of law arising from the appellate order, including the applicability of Rule 89(5) of the GST Rules and the relevant circulars and notifications. Since an efficacious statutory remedy under Section 112 of the GST Act was available, the extraordinary writ jurisdiction was not to be invoked.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was declined on the ground of alternative statutory remedy.

---