Alternative statutory remedy bars writ interference with assessment orders absent exceptional circumstances.

Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available against assessment orders, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be invoked unless exceptional circumstances are shown. The High Court will not treat writ proceedings as a substitute for the statutory appellate process, especially where the dispute turns on factual and assessment issues that the legislature has assigned to appeal. A petitioner must first exhaust the available remedial channel before seeking writ relief. On that basis, the writ petition was held not maintainable and the petitioner was left to pursue the appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy against the assessment orders.

Analysis: The impugned assessment orders were appealable under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993. The petitioner had not exhausted the statutory remedy before invoking writ jurisdiction and had also collaterally challenged the appellate order directing reassessment. The existence of an alternative remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction in all cases, but the writ court ordinarily declines interference where an adequate statutory appeal is available and no exceptional ground is shown. A proceeding under Article 226 is not a substitute for an appeal and the court will not relegate factual and assessment disputes to writ review when the statute provides a complete remedial channel.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was rightly dismissed, leaving the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal exists and no exceptional circumstance is shown, the High Court should ordinarily decline writ interference against assessment orders, since writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for the statutory appellate process.

---