Intra-court interference is unwarranted absent perversity in the Single Judge’s order.

The appellant and respondent No. 5 are husband and wife.

Respondent No. 5 purchased land on which a hotel and restaurant business was later conducted.

After disputes arose between them, respondent No. 5 informed the tax authorities that she had not consented to the generation of a GST registration number in the appellant’s favour.

The appellant’s GST registration was cancelled on that and other grounds.

The appellant challenged the cancellation in a writ petition.

The Single Judge declined to interfere, holding that the appellant had an alternative statutory remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and relegated him to that remedy.

The appellant then filed this intra-court appeal; he acknowledged that he had not filed a statutory appeal.

Section 107 of the CGST Act provides a statutory appellate remedy against the relevant order.

In an intra-court appeal, the Division Bench should not interfere merely because another view is possible; interference is warranted where the Single Judge’s order is demonstrably erroneous or perverse.

The Court applied the Supreme Court’s decision in Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority v. Scope Sales Private Limited, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 112, which reaffirmed that principle and cautioned against substituting the appellate Bench’s view for a plausible and reasonable view taken by the Single Judge.

The Single Judge had considered the matter and directed the appellant to pursue the statutory appeal, while expressly leaving the relevant factual and legal contentions for consideration by the appellate authority.

The appellant’s assertions concerning the efficacy of the remedy and alleged mala fides raised disputed factual matters better considered in the statutory appeal.

As the Single Judge’s decision was supported by reasons and was not perverse, the Division Bench found no basis to interfere under the applicable intra-court appellate standard.

It left all the appellant’s contentions open and directed that, if he filed an appeal under Section 107 within 30 days, the appellate authority must decide it on the merits without reference to delay, taking account of the time spent before the Single Judge and the Division Bench; the appeal was also to be disposed of expeditiously.