Alternative statutory remedy bars writ jurisdiction where the appellate route remains effective despite a contrary Tribunal view in another case.

A writ petition challenging a revisional order under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 was said to be barred where an efficacious statutory appeal lay to the Sales Tax Tribunal under section 39, followed by a further reference remedy. The commentary explains that a contrary view taken by the Tribunal in another assessee's case did not render the statutory remedy ineffective, because that view was not binding in the present matter and the petitioner could still raise the issue before the Tribunal. In revenue matters, article 226 cannot be used to bypass the procedure provided by the statute, and the writ petition was therefore not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an efficacious statutory appeal and further remedy under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, merely because the Tribunal had taken a contrary view in another assessee's case.

Analysis: The challenged revisional order was appealable to the Sales Tax Tribunal under section 39 of the Act, with a further remedy by reference thereafter. The existence of a view taken by the Tribunal in another case did not make the appellate remedy illusory or ineffective, because such a decision was not binding in the present matter and the petitioner could still contest the issue before the Tribunal. The rule against bypassing statutory remedies was applied, and writ jurisdiction under article 226 was held not to be a means of short-circuiting the procedure provided by the statute in revenue matters.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in view of the efficacious alternative remedy, and the Court declined to entertain it.

---