Alternative statutory remedy bars writ challenge to goods seizure under VAT law where representation and appeal were available.

A writ petition challenging seizure of goods under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act was not entertained because the Act provided an effective statutory remedy. The Court noted that objections had already been filed before the seizing authority and rejected, while the scheme allowed a representation before the same authority and, if still aggrieved, an appeal under the Act. In view of these alternate remedies, the Court declined to examine the merits of the seizure and treated the statutory process as sufficient.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging seizure of goods under the U.P. Valued Added Tax Act was maintainable in view of the statutory remedy of representation and appeal under the Act.

Analysis: The petitioner challenged seizure of goods effected under Section 50 of the U.P. Valued Added Tax Act. The order under challenge did not finally examine the merits of the transaction, but the Court noticed that the owner of the goods had already filed objections before the seizing authority and those objections had been rejected. The statutory scheme provided a remedy to file a representation before the same authority under the proviso to sub-section (7) of Section 48 and, if still aggrieved, to prefer an appeal under Section 57(4). In these circumstances, the Court declined to enter into the merits of the seizure and treated the statutory remedy as sufficient.

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

---