A statutory alternative remedy is usually required, unless natural justice is violated, which allows for judicial review.

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

The appellant impugnes the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.37027 of 2025, asserting that his client is entitled to challenge Exhibit P2 - Assessment Order, Exhibit P7 - order on Rectification Application and Exhibit P10 - penalty proceedings, under the provisions of the KGST Act , because the fundamental order among them, namely Exhibit P2, had been issued without affording his client any opportunity of being heard.

2. Sri. Tomson T. Emmanuel- learned counsel for the appellant, argued that Exhibit P2 order is unconstitutional and inept in law because, it has been issued denying his client an opportunity of being heard; and consequently, that a writ petition before this Court, challenging it, as also the consequential orders and proceedings, becomes maintainable. He relied upon various precedents, to argue that the law has been well settled that the mere availability of an alternative remedy would not preclude a writ petition before this Court, when the impugned order is one issued without competence, or in violation of the principles of natural justice. He contended that this is a classic case where Exhibit P2 order, and all consequential proceedings, were issued in violation of the principles of natural justice.

3. Smt. Thushara James - learned Senior Government Pleader, however, submitted that the afore imputations of the appellant are not factually true because, as limpid from Exhibit P2, the appellant was offered a personal hearing on 12.08.2024, but that he never filed his reply or appeared in person. She argued that, in such circumstances, the Competent Authority had no other option, but to complete the proceedings.

4. We must say that, in abstract sense, we are in full affirmation with the the principles of law asserted by Sri. Tomson T. Emmanuel, as any legally trained mind would be. Normally, when the assessee has an effective statutory alternative remedy, it is for him to invoke it, rather than approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; and the well recognized exemption to this is when the impugned order is vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice; or has been issued by an Authority incompetent in law; or is contrary to the Constitutional imperatives.

5. In the case at hand, it is the specific argument of the appellant that he had not been given an opportunity of being heard. However, going by Exhibit P2, this, prima facie, stands belied; but it is certainly available to him to prove it to the contrary through cogent evidence.

6. That apart, it is also without requirement for us to restate that an order which is imputed to be wrong and hence illegal, cannot be challenged before this Court, invoking writ jurisdiction. The proper remedy would be always to approach the competent statutory Authority.

7. In fact, going by the impugned judgment, we notice that the appellant himself had sought for a ‘’breathing time’’ to invoke his statutory remedies, which has been acceded to by the learned Single Judge .

8. In such circumstances, we see no reason to differ with the holdings of the learned Single Judge; though we feel it appropriate to grant some more time to the appellant, taking note of the fact that this appeal has been pending for a few months before us.

9. Resultantly, even when we dismiss this appeal, we order that the recovery proceedings against the petitioner, based on Exhibits P2, P7, P10 and P11, will be stand deferred for another one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

10. Needless to say, the right of the appellant to seek interim orders in this appeal as per law is also reserved. Further, it will also be open to the appell