Writ jurisdiction and alternative security modes: authority cannot insist on bank guarantee alone where rules permit bond with sureties.

Availability of an alternative statutory remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, as the court may intervene where the facts justify relief and substantial justice requires it. The document also notes that where the governing rules permit multiple modes of furnishing security, the authority cannot arbitrarily insist on only one mode. Under the relevant tax rules, a bond in the prescribed form with sureties was an authorised option, so insisting solely on a bank guarantee was unsustainable and reflected non-application of mind. The matter was disposed of with directions for early disposal of the pending appeal and continued protection against further coercive recovery if security was furnished in the permitted form.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether availability of an alternative statutory remedy barred exercise of writ jurisdiction; (ii) whether the appellate authority could insist on a bank guarantee when the governing rule permitted furnishing security by bond in Form VAT-64 with two sureties.

Issue (i): whether availability of an alternative statutory remedy barred exercise of writ jurisdiction

Analysis: The existence of an alternative remedy does not create an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is only a self-imposed limitation, and where the facts justify intervention, the Court may entertain the writ petition to do substantial justice. In the present matter, the request for a direction for expeditious disposal of the pending appeal also supported examination of the writ petition.

Conclusion: The alternative remedy did not preclude exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): whether the appellate authority could insist on a bank guarantee when the governing rule permitted furnishing security by bond in Form VAT-64 with two sureties

Analysis: Rule 77 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Rules, 2006 permits security to be furnished in several forms, including cash, savings certificates, bank guarantee, or bond in Form VAT-64 with two sureties acceptable to the authority. Since the earlier appellate order had accepted bond with sureties for part of the demand, there was no reason for the Tax Board to insist only on a bank guarantee for the remaining amount. The impugned order ignored the statutory option and was therefore arbitrary and vitiated by non-application of mind.

Conclusion: The insistence on bank guarantee alone was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of with a direction for early disposal of the pending appeal, continuation of bank attachment, and protection against further coercive recovery action if security was furnished in the statutorily permitted form.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute or rules prescribe multiple permissible modes of furnishing security, the authority cannot arbitrarily confine the party to one mode without reasons; such a decision is vulnerable for non-application of mind and arbitrariness, and writ jurisdiction may still be exercised despite an alternative statutory remedy.

---