Case Analysis
GST
1 min read
Supreme Court: No Writ Remedy if Alternate Option Exists in GST Demand
Full Story
The Supreme Court has ruled that writ petitions are not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution if an alternate remedy is available under Section 107 of the CGST Act, reinforcing the need to exhaust statutory options first.
Arham Infra Developers AOP Vs Union of India & Ors.
Ruling Points
▸
Writ jurisdiction should not be exercised if an effective alternate statutory remedy is available.
▸
The statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act must be used before a writ petition.
▸
The court will not examine the merits of the case if a statutory remedy exists.
Legal Basis
The ruling is based on the principle that statutory remedies should be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, as also outlined in Section 107 of the CGST Act.
Impact
This affects businesses and individuals seeking redress in GST demand cases, as they must first pursue appeals under Section 107 before approaching the High Court with a writ petition.
Related Articles
12 Apr 2026
· Gst
Resident Welfare Associations Oppose 18% GST on Maintenance Fees
12 Apr 2026
· Gst
Traders Seek GST Relief on Rental Payments
10 Apr 2026
· Gst
E-way Bill Generation Reaches Record High of 140 Million in March
10 Apr 2026
· Gst
GST Case Law Update: April 10, 2026
10 Apr 2026
· Gst