Statutory appellate remedy in tax matters prevails; writ jurisdiction remains exceptional and Supreme Court law stays binding.

Where an efficacious statutory appellate remedy exists in tax matters, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be used to bypass the statutory scheme, and interference is reserved for exceptional cases such as lack of jurisdiction, gross abuse of power, or victimisation. The binding law declared by the Supreme Court continues to govern under Article 141 until expressly altered, and a later doubt expressed by another Bench does not suspend that position. The writ appeals were therefore not entertained and were dismissed at the threshold, leaving the appellants to pursue the statutory appellate remedy; the High Court also declined to examine the assessment orders on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether writ appeals against dismissal of writ petitions concerning assessment orders under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 were liable to be entertained when a statutory appellate remedy was available, and whether the matters should be kept pending awaiting a future pronouncement of the Supreme Court on the governing legal position.

Analysis: In tax matters, where the statute provides a hierarchy of appeals and revisions before specialised authorities, the normal rule is that parties should be relegated to the statutory remedy. Interference in writ jurisdiction is justified only in exceptional situations such as lack of jurisdiction, gross abuse of power, or victimisation. The legal position declared by the Supreme Court in the governing decision continued to hold the field, and a subsequent doubt expressed by another Bench did not alter the binding force of that declaration under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The High Court therefore declined to suspend or defer the statutory process and also declined to enter upon the merits of the assessment orders, since the writ petitions had not been examined on merits by the single judge.

Conclusion: The writ appeals were not entertained and were dismissed at the threshold, leaving the appellants to pursue the statutory appellate remedy in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appellate remedy exists in tax matters, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be invoked to bypass the statutory scheme, and the law declared by the Supreme Court remains binding on all courts until expressly altered by that Court.

---