Alternative statutory remedy bars writ jurisdiction when factual issues can be raised in appeal under VAT law.

A writ petition was held not maintainable where the petitioner had an alternative and efficacious statutory appeal under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The impugned orders were passed under Section 69, and the Court noted that the dispute involved questions of fact that were better addressed by the appellate authority. The petitioner was therefore required to pursue the appeal before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 62 rather than invoke writ jurisdiction. The petition was rejected for non-availment of the statutory appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected on the ground that the petitioner had an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy by way of appeal against the impugned orders passed under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Analysis: The petitioner was found to have a statutory appeal under Section 62 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals). The impugned orders had been passed under Section 69 of the said Act, and the Court noted that questions of fact arose for decision-making. In these circumstances, the petitioner was required to pursue the appellate remedy rather than invoke writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable in view of the available alternative and efficacious appellate remedy and was rejected.

---