Alternative statutory remedy bars writ jurisdiction unless a recognised exception is clearly established under VAT law.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not exercised where an efficacious statutory remedy is available under the VAT regime. Recognised exceptions include enforcement of fundamental rights, breach of natural justice, actions wholly without jurisdiction, or a challenge to the vires of the enactment. Applying that principle, the Court found an effective and speedy remedy under Section 59 of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008, and held that no sufficient exception was established to bypass the statutory appeal mechanism. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable and was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an efficacious statutory alternative remedy under the VAT regime, even though the validity of a notification was challenged.

Analysis: The availability of an alternative remedy ordinarily restrains the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The recognised exceptions are where fundamental rights are sought to be enforced, principles of natural justice are violated, the impugned action is wholly without jurisdiction, or the vires of an enactment is under challenge. The Court found that the petitioner had an efficacious and speedy remedy under Section 59 of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008, and that no sufficient exception had been made out to bypass that statutory mechanism.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an effective statutory remedy exists, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised unless a recognised exception is clearly established.

---