Alternative remedy does not bar writ review when the challenge concerns vires of a tax statute's time-limit provision.

Availability of an alternative statutory remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction where the challenge goes to the constitutional validity or vires of the provision itself. Here, the petition questioned not only the rejection of revised returns but also the legality of the time-limit under Section 35(4) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act in relation to the audit timeline and revised return regime. Because an appellate forum cannot decide vires, the High Court under Article 226 could be invoked. The single Judge should not have declined interference solely on the basis of alternative remedy, and the matter was required to be reconsidered on the statutory validity issue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition could be dismissed on the ground of an alternative remedy when the challenge included the validity of Section 35(4) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and its interplay with the audit requirement and revised return regime.

Analysis: The challenge was not confined to the correctness of the endorsement rejecting the revised returns. It also questioned the legality of the statutory time-limit under Section 35(4) in the context of the audit timeline under Section 31(4) and the rules governing filing of audited statements and revised returns. A statutory appellate forum cannot pronounce upon the vires of a provision, whereas the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 can be invoked for that purpose. The learned single Judge, therefore, ought not to have declined interference merely because an appellate remedy was available.

Conclusion: The writ petition could not be rejected on the ground of alternative remedy, and the matter required reconsideration on the challenge to Section 35(4).

Final Conclusion: The dismissal by the learned single Judge was set aside and the matter was sent back for adjudication on the statutory validity issue.

Ratio Decidendi: Availability of an alternative statutory remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction where the challenge is to the constitutional validity or vires of the statutory provision itself.

---