Alternative statutory remedy bars writ interference in tax matters unless a recognised exception is clearly established.

Writ petitions challenging show cause notices under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 were held not maintainable because the Act provided a complete code with notice, hearing, assessment, appeal and revision. The Court applied the settled rule that Article 226 jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised where an adequate and efficacious statutory remedy exists. It found no recognised exception on the pleadings, including no fundamental-rights breach, constitutional challenge, lack of legislative competence, inefficacious remedy, or public injury. The statutory appeal was not treated as onerous because the pre-deposit requirement was limited and could be waived or relaxed, so the petitioners were relegated to the departmental and appellate remedies.

---

---

Issues: Whether writ petitions challenging show cause notices under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 were maintainable in view of the statutory remedy of appeal and revision, and whether any recognised exception justified bypassing that remedy.

Analysis: The Act was treated as a complete code providing for issuance of notice, opportunity of hearing, assessment, and a hierarchy of appellate and revisional remedies. The Court applied the settled principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not exercised where an adequate and efficacious alternative remedy exists. It relied on the exceptions recognised in tax jurisprudence, namely infringement of fundamental rights, challenge to constitutional validity, lack of legislative competence, unduly onerous or inefficacious remedy, and cases involving public injury. The Court held that none of those exceptions was attracted on the pleadings and facts. The statutory appeal was not considered onerous, as the pre-deposit requirement was limited and could be waived or relaxed. The existence of a show cause notice and the availability of statutory remedies were held to be sufficient reasons to decline interference at the threshold.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable and the petitioners were required to pursue the statutory remedy before the departmental authorities and appellate forum.

Final Conclusion: The Court refused to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction in a revenue matter where a complete statutory mechanism existed, and relegated the petitioners to the remedies provided by the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: In tax matters, where the statute provides an adequate and efficacious remedy of appeal and revision, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be invoked unless a recognised exception is clearly made out.

---