Alternative statutory remedy bars writ challenge to VAT assessment; deposit requirement alone does not justify writ jurisdiction.

A writ petition challenging a VAT assessment order was held not maintainable because the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, 2002 provided an efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal under section 46. The Court stated that the statutory deposit requirement under section 46(5) did not, by itself, justify bypassing the appellate process and invoking writ jurisdiction. The petition was therefore not entertained, and the petitioner was left to pursue the statutory appeal, including any request for waiver of deposit before the appellate authority in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the assessment order was maintainable when a statutory appeal was available under the VAT Act, and whether the requirement of statutory deposit could justify invocation of writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: An assessment order under the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, 2002 was under challenge. The Court noted that the statute provided an efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal under section 46 of the VAT Act. The existence of a statutory requirement of deposit under section 46(5) did not, by itself, furnish a ground to bypass the appellate remedy and invoke writ jurisdiction. The Court therefore declined to entertain the petition and granted liberty to pursue the statutory appeal, including a request for waiver of the deposit before the appellate authority in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in view of the alternative statutory remedy, and the challenge to the assessment order was left to be pursued in appeal.

---