Efficacious alternative remedy limits writ jurisdiction where disputed facts and natural justice claims can be decided in revision.

Where an efficacious statutory revision remedy is available under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, the High Court ordinarily declines to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Alleged violation of natural justice was not shown on the record with sufficient material, and the disputed factual issues could be examined in the statutory revision forum. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable, and interference was declined in favour of pursuing the alternative remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the efficacious alternative remedy under section 35 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and whether the plea of violation of natural justice justified interference.

Analysis: The existence of an effective statutory revision remedy before the Joint Commissioner (CT) against the Deputy Commissioner's order made the High Court's writ jurisdiction discretionary. The record did not disclose materials sufficient to establish a breach of natural justice, and the alleged factual disputes required evidence and could be examined in revision. In these circumstances, the Special Tribunal was justified in directing the petitioner to pursue the alternative remedy rather than invoking writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and interference was declined.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory alternative remedy is available, the High Court ordinarily declines to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226, especially when disputed factual questions, including alleged violation of natural justice, can be adjudicated in the alternative statutory forum.

---