Alternative statutory remedy bars writ review of reassessment where notice, participation, and no exceptional ground are shown.

An efficacious statutory appeal under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ordinarily bars writ intervention under Article 226 when reassessment orders are passed after notice and the assessee's participation. Here, the assessing authority had considered the books of account and the petitioner's reply, and no exceptional ground such as breach of natural justice, want of jurisdiction, or challenge to the validity of the statute was established. The writ petition was therefore held not maintainable and was dismissed, leaving the assessee to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the reassessment orders was maintainable in view of the efficacious statutory appeal under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and whether any exceptional ground such as violation of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction was made out.

Analysis: The impugned reassessment orders were passed after notice and participation by the petitioner, and the records showed that the assessing authority had considered the books of account and the petitioner's reply. The availability of an effective appellate remedy under Section 62 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 weighed against interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The recognised exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy, namely breach of natural justice, want of jurisdiction, or challenge to the validity of a statutory provision, were not established on the facts.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed, leaving the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available and the impugned order is passed after notice and participation, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be exercised in the absence of a proven exceptional ground.

---