Statutory alternative remedy bars writ jurisdiction where an effective appellate remedy exists and no exceptional circumstance is shown.

A writ petition challenging an order under the Karnataka Value Added Tax framework was held not maintainable because an effective statutory appeal was available. The petitioner did not show any special circumstance to establish that the appellate remedy was inefficacious. Where the statute provides an adequate alternative remedy, the normal course is to pursue that remedy before invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition was therefore liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of an efficacious alternative remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory alternative remedy under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act.

Analysis: The order challenged before the Court arose under the Value Added Tax framework. A statutory appeal was available to the petitioner under the Act, and the petitioner did not demonstrate any special circumstance to show that such remedy was not efficacious. When an effective appellate remedy is provided by statute, the normal course is to pursue that remedy before invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of an efficacious alternative remedy.

---