Alternative statutory remedy bars writ jurisdiction where the dispute is evidentiary and no proper Article 14 challenge is made out.

A writ petition challenging an order under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 was held not maintainable because an efficacious statutory appeal lay under section 39, and writ jurisdiction under article 226 should ordinarily not be invoked before exhausting that remedy. The Court also noted that the dispute involved appreciation of evidence, which made recourse to the statutory forum more appropriate. The constitutional challenge to section 25(5) under article 14 was rejected because no pleaded foundation or substantiated argument supported it. The Court therefore declined to interfere at that stage and left the petitioner to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the order passed under section 40 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 was maintainable in view of the statutory appeal remedy under section 39 of the Act, and whether the constitutional challenge to section 25(5) of the Act under article 14 of the Constitution of India was made out.

Analysis: The petitioner had an efficacious alternative statutory remedy by way of appeal under section 39 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973. Where a statute creates the right or liability and also prescribes a special remedy for enforcement, that remedy must ordinarily be pursued before invoking writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The dispute also turned on appreciation of evidence, which reinforced the propriety of leaving the matter to the statutory forum. The challenge to section 25(5) on the ground of violation of article 14 was not supported by any pleaded foundation or substantiated during hearing.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable at that stage and the Court declined to interfere until the statutory remedies were exhausted. The constitutional challenge was also rejected as unsupported.

Final Conclusion: The Court refused to exercise writ jurisdiction and left the petitioner to pursue the statutory appellate remedy, resulting in dismissal of the petition.

Ratio Decidendi: When a statute provides a complete and efficacious remedial mechanism for enforcement of a statutory right or liability, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked until those statutory remedies are exhausted.

---