ABDUL GAFOOR.M. v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & ORS.

Introduction

This judgment of the Kerala High Court reiterates the settled principle that the existence of an effective statutory appellate remedy under the GST Act ordinarily bars the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court held that where the controversy involves disputed questions of fact—such as whether a mandatory pre-show cause notice was issued—the High Court will not undertake factual adjudication in writ proceedings and will instead require the aggrieved person to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

The Division Bench further clarified that although allegations regarding non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements may, in appropriate cases, justify invocation of writ jurisdiction, such jurisdiction cannot be exercised where the very existence of the alleged procedural defect is disputed and requires factual verification. Accordingly, the writ appeal was dismissed, while granting liberty to the appellant to seek exclusion of the time spent before the High Court for the purpose of limitation before the statutory appellate authority.