JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The appellant challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C)No.1588/2026, arguing that the reserving of alternative remedy to them, in the factual circumstances involved, is inefficacious and virtually without purpose.

2. Sri.Tomson T. Emmanuel – learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that this is a case where his client challenges Ext.P4 order on various grounds, including that he was not given any notice and that there was violation of natural justice; but that these issues are ‘generally not considered’ (sic) by the Appellate Authority, under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act).

3. As much as we are taken aback by the afore submissions, in order to confirm, we asked Smt.Thushara James – learned Special Government Pleader, if the afore contentions will be disregarded by the Appellate Authority, when it considers a Statutory Appeal under Section 107 of the ‘CGST Act’. Her answer was vehemently to the negative, saying that every contention, as are impelled before the Authority, will be considered and answered as per law.

4. We have little doubt that, under Section 107 of the Act,