Alternative statutory remedy bars writ jurisdiction where the appellate remedy under tax law remains unexhausted.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was declined because an effective statutory appellate remedy existed under Section 31(1) of the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The Court held that the petitioner had not exhausted the alternate remedy available under the Act, and that this justified refusal to entertain the writ petition. The petitioner was left to pursue the statutory appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be entertained when an effective statutory appeal was available under Section 31(1) of the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005.

Analysis: The petitioner had not exhausted the statutory appellate remedy provided by the Act. The presence of an effective alternative remedy justified the Court in declining to exercise writ jurisdiction in the matter.

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

---