Alternative remedy in seizure disputes under tax law bars writ relief where statutory release, appeal, and revision are available.

A writ challenge to seizure of goods under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act was held ordinarily unavailable because the statute provided a complete alternative remedy for release, appeal, and revision. Section 48(7) allowed the seizing officer or authorised authority to fix release conditions, including lesser deposit, no deposit for recorded reasons, or security, and orders under that provision were appealable under section 57(4) with further revisional recourse to the High Court. The authority considering release could examine the legality of the seizure itself while determining the release conditions, and the provisions were read harmoniously so that section 60 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act was not made redundant.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging seizure of goods was maintainable in view of the alternative statutory remedy under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, and whether the authority under section 48(7) could examine the validity of the seizure order while considering release of the goods.

Analysis: Section 48(7) empowered the seizing officer to indicate the amount for release of seized goods and also vested the Commissioner or an authorised officer with power, for recorded reasons, to direct release without deposit, on lesser deposit, or on furnishing security. An order under that proviso was appealable under section 57(4), with a further revisional remedy before the High Court. The availability of this complete statutory mechanism showed that an adequate alternative remedy existed. The contention that the validity of seizure could not be examined under the proviso was rejected, because the authority deciding release must necessarily consider whether the seizure was valid before fixing the amount or conditions for release. The provisions were also held to be capable of harmonious construction, and section 60 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act was not rendered redundant.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in view of the alternative remedy, and the petitioner had to approach the statutory authority for appropriate relief.

Final Conclusion: Judicial interference was declined and the dispute was left to the statutory release and appellate mechanism under the taxing statute.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute provides an effective mechanism for release of seized goods, together with appeal and revision, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be exercised, and the releasing authority may examine the legality of the seizure while deciding the conditions for release.

---