Alternative statutory remedy principle limits writ jurisdiction in tax matters despite pre-deposit conditions and prior adverse decisions.

A writ petition under Article 226 will ordinarily not be entertained where a fiscal statute provides a complete appellate mechanism and allied remedies. The existence of a pre-deposit requirement does not, by itself, make the statutory appeal ineffective, as such conditions are constitutionally valid. An earlier adverse view in another matter also does not justify bypassing the appellate forum, because each assessment year and case must be examined independently on its own facts. The operative effect is that the petitioner should pursue the statutory appeal, with the matter to be decided on merits within the prescribed time.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite the statutory appeal remedy under section 39 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, and whether the deposit requirement and an earlier adverse view in another case made that remedy ineffective.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 provided a complete machinery for assessment and challenge, including appeal and further remedies. The rule against entertaining writ petitions when an effective alternative remedy exists is a rule of self-imposed restraint, applied with greater rigour in revenue matters. The deposit condition for entertaining an appeal did not render the remedy ineffective, since such pre-deposit provisions are constitutionally valid. The fact that a similar issue had been decided in another matter did not justify bypassing the appellate forum, because each assessment year and each case must be independently examined on its own facts.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in view of the effective alternative remedy of appeal, and the petitioner was required to pursue the statutory remedy.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and relegated the petitioner to the appellate remedy under the Act, while permitting the appeal to be filed within the stipulated period and directed to be decided on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a fiscal statute provides a complete statutory mechanism for appeal and allied remedies, the existence of a pre-deposit requirement or an earlier adverse view in a different case does not by itself make the remedy ineffective so as to justify bypassing the statutory forum under Article 226.

---