Alternative statutory remedy bars writ challenge to sales tax penalty, and non-disclosure of prior litigation defeats relief.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was ordinarily unavailable to challenge levy and recovery of a sales tax penalty where an efficacious statutory appeal existed; the petitioner was relegated to that remedy. The Court also treated the non-disclosure of an earlier writ petition on the same cause of action as an independent ground to refuse relief, since a second writ cannot be entertained without full disclosure of prior proceedings. The penalty challenge was therefore left to be pursued, if at all, under the Act.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition challenging levy and recovery of penalty under the sales tax was maintainable despite availability of an appellate remedy under the statute; (ii) whether the writ petition was liable to be dismissed for having been filed on the same cause of action without disclosing the earlier writ petition.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition challenging levy and recovery of penalty under the sales tax law was maintainable despite availability of an appellate remedy under the statute.

Analysis: The petition sought restraint against encashment of the bank guarantee and recovery of penalty imposed under the sales tax statute. The Court noted that the petitioner could challenge both the penalty and its recovery by way of the statutory appeal provided under the Act. Where an adequate alternative remedy exists, invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not ordinarily permitted for challenging such fiscal orders.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on this ground and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was liable to be dismissed for having been filed on the same cause of action without disclosing the earlier writ petition.

Analysis: The Court found that an earlier writ petition on the same matter had already been dismissed and that fact was not disclosed in the present proceedings. The omission to place the earlier litigation before the Court was treated as improper and disapproved. A second writ on the same cause of action, without full disclosure, could not be entertained.

Conclusion: The writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground as well.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction in view of the available statutory appeal and the non-disclosure of prior proceedings, leaving the penalty challenge to be pursued, if at all, under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute provides an efficacious appellate remedy against a fiscal penalty order, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be entertained, and non-disclosure of an earlier proceeding on the same cause of action provides an additional ground to refuse relief.

---