Alternative statutory remedy bars writ relief where VAT assessment disputes can be pursued through appeal and revision channels.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was held unavailable to challenge assessment and penalty orders under the Value Added Tax Act, 2005 where the statute provided a complete appellate and revisional framework, including appeal, revision, review and further appeal. The 25% pre-deposit condition for appeal was not treated as so onerous as to make the remedy ineffective. Because the assessing authority had jurisdiction and no violation of natural justice was shown, the recognised exceptions to the alternative-remedy rule did not apply. Even an allegedly erroneous assessment did not amount to a jurisdictional defect, and the dispute had to be pursued in the statutory forum.

---

---

Issues: Whether writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be invoked to challenge assessment and penalty orders under the Value Added Tax Act, 2005 despite the availability of statutory appeal and revision remedies, including a pre-deposit requirement.

Analysis: The Act, 2005 was treated as a complete machinery providing appeal, revision, review and further appeal, including a specific appellate remedy against assessment and penalty orders. The Court held that the requirement of depositing 25% of the assessed tax for an appeal did not by itself make the remedy onerous or ineffective. The exceptions justifying bypass of alternative remedy were absent, because the assessing authority had jurisdiction to make the assessment and there was no violation of natural justice. The Court also held that even if the assessment view was erroneous, that would not convert the order into one passed without jurisdiction; such questions had to be examined in the statutory forum.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable in view of the efficacious statutory remedies under the Act, 2005, and the petitioners were not entitled to bypass them under Article 226.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute provides an adequate and efficacious appellate and revisional mechanism, writ relief will ordinarily be refused unless the impugned action suffers from a complete lack of jurisdiction or violation of natural justice.

---