Alternative statutory remedy bars writ jurisdiction where tax liability on Set Top Boxes can be examined in appeal.

The writ petition challenging assessment of tax on Set Top Boxes was not entertained because an efficacious statutory appeal was available under Section 55 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008. The Court noted that the factual concerning sale or transfer of the Set Top Boxes and the applicability of tax could be examined by the Appellate Authority, making recourse to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 inappropriate. The petitioner was therefore required to pursue the alternative appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy under Section 55 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008.

Analysis: The petitioner challenged the assessment on the ground that tax had been wrongly imposed on Set Top Boxes. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that an appeal was available under Section 55 of the Act. The Court held that the questions raised, including the factual controversy regarding sale or transfer of the Set Top Boxes and the applicability of tax, could be examined by the Appellate Authority. In view of the efficacious statutory remedy, it was not appropriate to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained because the petitioner had an adequate alternative remedy by way of appeal.

---