Analysis of Supreme Court decisions on maintainability of writ before High Court under Section 226 of Constitution of India, When alternate remedy under the Act is available.
Article 226 of Constitution of India deals with the power of high courts to issue certain writs like, writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto & certiorari or any of them.
If any aggrieved file any of the above writ , High Court will first analyse its maintainability & whether alternate remedy available in the Act respective act, under which the adverse allegations made against the petitioner.
Under the GST Act, till now there was too many loopholes businessman used to face many challenges be it getting registered under the Act or be it facing legal challenges or applicability.
Hence, for justice they approach for filing writs before high courts.
But to avoid redundant filing of writs when there is alternate filing of writs when there is alternate remedy available supreme court has set a criteria’s for filing writs.
In the case of State of Maharashtra and others V/s Greatship (India) Ltd. Supreme court says,
In our opinion, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is duty-bound to take all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration and decide for itself even in the absence of proper affidavits from the State and its instrumentalities as to whether any case at all is made out requiring its interference on the basis of the material made available on record. There is nothing like issuing an ex parte writ of mandamus, order or direction in a public law remedy. Further, while considering the validity of impugned action or inaction the Court will not consider itself restricted to the pleadings of the State but would be free to satisfy itself whether any case as such is made out by a person invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty bound to consider whether:
(a) adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved;
(b) the petition reveals all material facts;
(c) the petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute;
(d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches;
(e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation;
(f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other factors.
Hence in the case of GR Infra Projects Limited Ratlam V/s State of Madhya Pradesh dated 21.11.2025
The Supreme Court observed that the Section 74 show cause notice issued to the assessee lacked essential material particulars, containing only figures without factual basis for allegations of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression. Finding prima facie merit, the Court issued notice, granted stay of further proceedings, and permitted dasti service.
In the above case, there is a lack of material facts and hence high court should have entertained the Writ petition filed.
Conclusion:
Before filing Writ before High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India above , portioner should check whether the writ application fits in Supreme Court’s Criteria.
Author Bio
