Alternative statutory remedy limits writ jurisdiction in tax seizure disputes absent exceptional grounds

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not invoked where the statute provides an efficacious alternative remedy. In this tax seizure context, the court noted that section 13-A(6) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 provided a representation-based statutory remedy, and no exceptional ground was shown. As no lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, or challenge to the law's validity was established, interference was declined and the petitioner was left to pursue the statutory forum.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory remedy available under section 13-A(6) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis: The petition challenged seizure-related action in a tax matter, but the Court found that the statute itself provided an efficacious remedy by way of representation under section 13-A(6). Relying on the settled principle that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised when an adequate alternative remedy exists, the Court held that interference under Article 226 is discretionary and is reserved for exceptional cases such as lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, or challenge to the vires of the statute. No such exceptional circumstance was shown.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed for availing the statutory remedy.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner was relegated to the statutory forum, and the High Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction in a matter governed by an alternative remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory remedy is available, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked unless exceptional grounds such as violation of natural justice, want of jurisdiction, or challenge to the validity of the law are shown.

---