A writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution when disputed questions of fact regarding statutory procedural compliance exist and an efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available to the aggrieved party.

JUDGMENT

Devan Ramachandran, J The appellant challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.34163 of 2025 because the said writ petition was refused to be admitted or considered on the ground that there is an alternative, efficacious and statutory remedy.

2. Smt.K.Krishna – the learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the findings and holdings of the learned Single Judge are in error because it has been omitted to be noticed that, even as per Ext.P10 order, there is not even a mention of any imperative and statutory notice having been issued prior to the show cause notice, as required under Section 142(1)(a) of the GST Act. She contented that, when the most imperative statutory requirements have been violated, the impugned order can only be construed to be null and void; and consequently that a writ petition before this Court is maintainable.

3. Sri.Alan Priyadarshi Dev – the learned Government Pleader submitted that the contention of the appellant, that a notice prior to the show cause notice under Section 142(1)(a) had not been issued is not factually true; and if he had invoked his statutory remedy, the Authorities would have established to the contrary. He re-iterated that the findings of the learned Single Judge are without error because, the appellant has an alternative statutory remedy.

4. The law relating to the invocation of writ petition by a litigant having alternative statutory remedy is too well settled, to be restated. No doubt, if the order impugned is null and void, such a remedy is possible.

5. However, going by the case at hand, the question whether there is a notice prior to the show cause notice, which finally lead to Ext.P10, itself is a disputation in the factual realm, into which this Court cannot enter, going by the well recognised constraints of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In such perspective, we do not find that the learned Single Judge has erred in any manner. Consequently, we dismiss this writ appeal; however, clarifying that it will be open to appellant to seek before the statutory forum, for the period spent by him before this Court - both in writ appeal and in writ petition - to be excluded from the rigour of limitation.