Availability of Statutory Appeal Bars Writ Jurisdiction Against Fresh Adjudication of Post-Remand Refund Claims

The Petitioner sought a refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit (Rs. 6,49,667/-) for July–September 2019

The Assistant Commissioner initially sanctioned only Rs. 3,05,198/-, rejecting the balance of Rs. 3,44,469/- via an Order-in-Original (OIO) dated 08.10.2021

On appeal, the Appellate Authority (Joint Commissioner) issued an Order-in-Appeal (OIA) on 27.09.2025, setting aside the OIO

Following this, the Assistant Commissioner re-examined the refund application and issued a new "Impugned Order" dated 20.02.2026, rejecting the refund again based on fresh detailed reasons

The Petitioner challenged this rejection directly in the High Court, arguing that the OIA had already finalized the refund entitlement

1. Whether the Assistant Commissioner was precluded from re-examining a refund claim on fresh grounds after a previous rejection order was set aside by the Appellate Authority

2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act to challenge a discretionary refund rejection order via a writ petition

The Court considered Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, which provides a statutory remedy of appeal against orders passed by adjudicating authorities

It also applied the principle of "Alternative Remedy," which dictates that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when a comprehensive statutory appeal process is available, unless the impugned order is non est or wholly without jurisdiction

the court interpreted the scope of an Appellate Authority’s power under Section 107(11), noting that setting aside an order on specific grounds does not equate to an unconditional mandate for refund if other legal grounds for examination remain open

The Court analyzed the OIA dated 27.09.2025 and found that while it set aside the initial rejection, it did not issue a direction for the "unconditional release" of the refund nor did it "foreclose examination" of the Petitioner’s eligibility on other legal grounds

The Court reasoned that the Assistant Commissioner retained the jurisdiction to independently examine the claim afresh on grounds distinct from those negated by the Appellate Authority

Because the Impugned Order contained detailed reasons for the second rejection, the Court held that the validity of those reasons required a factual and legal merit-based review

Consequently, the Court found the order was not "without jurisdiction," making the statutory appeal under Section 107 the more appropriate and comprehensive forum for dispute resolution

The Court ruled that the Petitioner must approach the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act to contest the merits of the Assistant Commissioner's findings

the Court granted the Petitioner the liberty to seek exclusion of the time spent pursuing this writ petition when calculating the limitation period for filing the statutory appeal