Statutory alternative remedy bars writ jurisdiction in revenue matters; exemption condition and assessment challenge both failed.

The proviso to the 18 July 1979 exemption notification, limiting relief to wheat purchased from the Food Corporation of India, was upheld; a subsequent policy permitting open-market purchases did not justify striking down the condition attached to the exemption. The writ petition was also held not maintainable because the petitioners had an efficacious statutory appeal against the provisional assessment orders under the U.P. Sales Tax regime. Article 226 could not be used to bypass the prescribed appellate remedy in a revenue matter, absent exceptional circumstances. The challenge to both the notification and the assessment orders therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the proviso to the notification dated 18 July 1979, restricting the benefit to wheat purchased from the Food Corporation of India, was liable to be struck down. (ii) Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of the statutory appeal against the provisional assessment orders.

Issue (i): Whether the proviso to the notification dated 18 July 1979, restricting the benefit to wheat purchased from the Food Corporation of India, was liable to be struck down.

Analysis: The validity of the notification had already been upheld in the connected matter, and the Court found no reason to accept the challenge to the proviso. The change in policy permitting open-market purchase of wheat did not furnish a basis to invalidate the condition attached to the exemption.

Conclusion: The challenge to the proviso failed and the proviso was not struck down.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of the statutory appeal against the provisional assessment orders.

Analysis: The petitioners were aggrieved by provisional assessment orders passed under the U.P. Sales Tax regime, but the Court held that the proper remedy was an appeal under the statute. Article 226 was not to be used to bypass the statutory appellate mechanism, particularly in revenue matters where an efficacious alternative remedy existed.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable as a substitute for the statutory appeal.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the notification and the assessment orders did not succeed, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available in a revenue matter, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be invoked to circumvent the prescribed procedure, absent exceptional circumstances.

---